It is currently Sat Oct 21, 2017 1:06 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 815 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 78, 79, 80, 81, 82  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Kaepernick Snubs Anthem
PostPosted: Fri Dec 16, 2016 5:30 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 12:13 pm
Posts: 1124
COR-TEN wrote:
I said the dropping prices were partially artificially induced by the sanctions and requests by the US government. Some

No, you said:
COR-TEN wrote:
Why do you think they collapsed? It was directly part of the sanctions. Look it up. Opec and other oil producers were encouraged to increase output

Neither the US government nor any EU government has anything to do with OPEC negotiations.

Quote:
I don't agree with you that the US has little influence. They do.

Not as much influence as you think =/= little influence. Again, you made the argument that crude production in OPEC countries is a direct result of US/EU influence. I disagree and have provided evidence. You have not.

Quote:
A lot of places also don't have $3 trillion dollar deals were the beneficiary is the sec of state directly. You can't see the conflict of interest there?

The deal is for $500 billion, and that's using Rachel Maddow as a source. Please don't exaggerate.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Kaepernick Snubs Anthem
PostPosted: Fri Dec 16, 2016 6:04 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2014 3:08 pm
Posts: 4831
Look, I'm not interested in going back and forth with you. I've acknowledge it wasn't the sole factor. The plummeting price of oil wouldn't have been as severe without the "sanctions" or related diplomatic actions. The deal is worth up to $3 trillion in reserves. What exxon pays to drill is another matter. It's still worth $3 trillion. I'm not exaggerating. So you pay $6-900B and you get $3 trillion in return. That's a big deal.

You provided an article by the economist. Respectable? Sure, but one article doesn't prove your point or negates mine. There is nothing in that article that addresses my assertion. It doesn't mention sanctions whatsoever. You extrapolated it. I'm also not bothering to look up 2 year old articles to satisfy you. I don't care enough. This is a casual blog. If you are more interested in proving people wrong like other posters here, then help yourself. It's obvious you don't care to believe me, or trust what I read was valid. I'm Ok with that.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Kaepernick Snubs Anthem
PostPosted: Fri Dec 16, 2016 7:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2014 8:57 pm
Posts: 2479
955876 wrote:
Quote:
At any rate, I'm surprised nobody seems to care that the head of exxon was rewarded with the job of sec of state. Ready to fill his former company's coffers with billions if not trillions of dollars.


Funny that I've never seen you express any concern for the millions and millions of dollars that flowed into the Clinton "Foundation" while HRC was serving as SOS while on her way to presumably become POTUS.

I wonder if all those big donors are still writing checks.

You are so ready to pounce on corruption you fear might happen all the while ignoring the rampant corruption that's been taking place right under your nose.


So there is precedence for the corruption so it should be fine? Are you saying we should not worry that Trump will make decisions that will favor his businesses and friends and family because Hilary would have done the same thing? Is Trump giving up his foundation? The one that is under investigation for real illegal things.

I have no doubt that Trump's family will come out of this 5x richer than they were before. They will do it within the laws as written. Just like the Bush and Clinton families have done. Influence will be bought through Trump's children in the company he no longer controls.

Unlike Trump, the Secretary of State has laws he must follow in regards to his money and influence. He will have to put all of investments in a blind trust. My guess is that he will have to sell all of his Exxon stock but just putting it in a blind trust should be fine. I think Tillerson will be fine. He should pass with flying colors and only some loud questions( in front of the cameras) about Russia and Putin.

Bolton is the one they should sink in confirmation. He is a full Neo-con who has not found a war he does not like.

_________________
So here’s the thing about watching game tape: it’s only as useful as the asshole watching it. - Drew Magary


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Kaepernick Snubs Anthem
PostPosted: Fri Dec 16, 2016 8:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 9:19 am
Posts: 7845
95, it's risible to claim we should not be bothered by a foreign power hacking into a party's campaign servers and then passing that info along to a third party for dissemination on the grounds that we cannot prove the extent to which the info affected the election and on the grounds that the party in question should have had better security. Your proposed switching up is the same red herring Dan threw out.

Sure, Dems should have had better security.

Now you have also made the Brasco argument.

Bc the Pats deflating their balls cannot be proved to have given them an advantage, you go ahead and say we should not be bothered by it. Have at it.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Kaepernick Snubs Anthem
PostPosted: Fri Dec 16, 2016 11:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2014 12:06 am
Posts: 3497
Cheer up Lit.

The neocons are pretty much in late era Aaron Burr territory, a man without a country:

http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-an ... e-neo-cons

So there's that.

A little Jackie McLean always makes me feel better:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TICFwrSnQKo

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Kaepernick Snubs Anthem
PostPosted: Sat Dec 17, 2016 8:14 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 9:19 am
Posts: 7845
Dan Smith--BYU wrote:
Cheer up Lit.

The neocons are pretty much in late era Aaron Burr territory, a man without a country:

http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-an ... e-neo-cons

So there's that.

A little Jackie McLean always makes me feel better:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TICFwrSnQKo


Meanwhile the AP is reporting that the FBI has come around.

Google this: FBI backs CIA conclusion on Russian hacking motive

Dan, 95, you're both simply wrong on this one.

I'll cheer up if Trump has the stones to do something about it.

Love how Dan tosses out the idea of a binary choice between war and being Putin's bitch.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Kaepernick Snubs Anthem
PostPosted: Sat Dec 17, 2016 12:26 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2014 12:06 am
Posts: 3497
Your evidence is that the agency says they have evidence that they are not willing to present. That's not evidence. That's innuendo, which is a hallmark of red baiting, which the left used to hate until it served their purpose.

I think we can have a relationship with Russia that suits our national interest, that's pretty much the opposite of being a nation's bitch, which pretty much describes our current relationship with the Saudis.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Kaepernick Snubs Anthem
PostPosted: Sat Dec 17, 2016 1:25 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 8:12 pm
Posts: 3260
Quote:
So there is precedence for the corruption so it should be fine? Are you saying we should not worry that Trump will make decisions that will favor his businesses and friends and family because Hilary would have done the same thing? Is Trump giving up his foundation? The one that is under investigation for real illegal things.


I'm not saying that at all. Not even close. What I am saying is that in the case of Trump you are expressing concern over what might happen while in the case of Hillary it has been happening. Her entire political career. And would have only been worse has she been given the keys to the kingdom. You mention Trump's businesses benefitting as a concern of yours. Ok. That's fine and I'll grant you that. But ask yourself what business it is that HRC is in? Trump built his wealth in the private sector. How in the world did HRC, a public servant her entire career, amass so much wealth? One is wealthy as a result of their business while the other is wealthy as a result of their political dealings. Trump didn't need to be POTUS to be wealthy while HRC absolutely needs politics to continue amassing the type of wealth they have. Big difference. And please, don't talk foundation. I guarantee anything you may find negative with his, hers has that beat in spades. That is another topic but if you really want to delve into all of the illegal dealings of each let's have at it. I'll work on my list and you work on yours.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Kaepernick Snubs Anthem
PostPosted: Sat Dec 17, 2016 1:32 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 8:12 pm
Posts: 3260
Quote:
Unlike Trump, the Secretary of State has laws he must follow in regards to his money and influence.


How many laws did HRC break while SOS? I can list them if you like. Did it not alarm you the massive amounts of money that flew into the Clinton foundation while she was serving in that position? Much for foreign entities, governments, etc which is actually against the rules.

Wanna bet those contributions drop off substantially now that she doesn't have much to offer in return?

I've said from the getgo with this that I'm not as much a Trump supporter as I am someone who was flat out against HRC and the very blatant and obvious corruption that follows & enriches them.

HRC used her influence to provide access to our government provided thise seeking access could pay the required $$$$$$$$$.

While you worry Trump might be corrupt, she has already been proven to be.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Kaepernick Snubs Anthem
PostPosted: Sat Dec 17, 2016 1:37 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 8:12 pm
Posts: 3260
Quote:
95, it's risible to claim we should not be bothered by a foreign power hacking into a party's campaign servers and then passing that info along to a third party for dissemination on the grounds that we cannot prove the extent to which the info affected the election and on the grounds that the party in question should have had better security. Your proposed switching up is the same red herring Dan threw out.


Again no. I never said we shouldn't be bothered. I don't want any country hacking us.

What I'm asking you is what info came out that swayed the election? Be specific now. Was misinformation passed that wasn't true? If so, please detail.

All of the hackstuff that was all over the news during the election was emails and shit between many of those in power within the DNC. They didn't deny any of it becausethey couldn't. So instead, they focus on the hack itself and attempting to get the people to focus on the hack.

I'm asking about content. What was the info exposed via the hack that is in dispute?

Unless I'm missing something here, all I'm hearing is that the election results are in question because of a hack. Ok, now get to the meat & potatoes. What info? What content? What did it say?


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 815 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 78, 79, 80, 81, 82  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
FORUM RULES --- PRIVACY POLICY




Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group