Might not be just one Supreme Court judge...Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Printable View
Might not be just one Supreme Court judge...Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
2 then?
He already thinks it's worth it because it pisses off liberals.
As did Pearl Harbor. I can only imagine the GOP response if it happened today. Especially given how Democratic Hawaii is.
Am I missing tags again or have posters like Loki decided that it's a waste of time to ever try and indicate what they're referring to and that they should just emulate GGT?
Referring to the Merkel statement about relying on the US that was plastered over the news everywhere.
How exactly is that related to pearl harbour?
The Lewks of the world will support anything as long as it upsets Democrats. Pearl Harbor upset Democrats.
Lewk's idol:
Twitter Link
So you ARE trying to emulate GGT. Loki, believe it or not we aren't telepathic. Please tell me you do a better job of communicating when you're dealing with students. Or are they also forced to guess how the German Chancellor pursuing trade and climate talks with Beijing is supposed to result in Chinese dominance over the Pacific?Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
It was instantly obvious to me, I guess I have a telepathic link to that dirty Georgian brain.
Apparently it's unreasonable to expect people to be aware of the top news story...
It's unreasonable to expect people to connect oblique references to "the top news story," particularly when half your cites are blogs, tweets, and wire posts AND at least half the material in your one-liner have nothing whatsoever to do with "the top news story"Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Especially given that Merkel's comments were that the EU could not "rely upon the US and UK" and they weren't even the top news story in the UK, I doubt they were the top news story in the USA.
Nor IMO were they even remotely cause for concern. From a British perspective at least being reliable meant bending over backwards and getting shafted time and again. Maybe from now on the rump EU will have to give us something we actually want to be relied upon rather than just taken for granted.
From the US perspective too certain nations have taken the piss with NATO. The US and UK have paid their dues every single year and been "relied upon" to the extent that other nations have acted like parasitical free riders. I'm not referring to nations like Iceland that Lewk threw a fit at despite them being agreed to be different and who provided a strategic role instead. Trump is an arse but he has a point that certain nations are taking liberties.
Coulter has no point. What paper army is Russia meant to be getting defended from?
Anyone catch President Asshole's morning tweets yet?
"We have a MASSIVE trade deficit with Germany, plus they pay FAR LESS than they should on NATO & military. Very bad for U.S. This will change"
and
"Russian officials must be laughing at the U.S. & how a lame excuse for why the Dems lost the election has taken over the Fake News."
I suspect he's right about Russia laughing at the US, but not how he seems to think. They likely cannot believe how wildly successful they've been at rat-fucking US politics and the apparent cohesion of the Western allies.
More importantly, her remarks seemed to be more addressed toward dealing with climate change than anything else. So I'm left wondering just what cooperation she expected since the US has never provided much there (due to the US Senate) And I'm curious what better cooperation she expects to get from China which is still, AFAIK, even more intransigent on the issue than we are.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Yes, let's piss off allies, that's always a good idea, Rand and Fuzzy. Morons, the both of you.
I don't agree with pissing off our allies and I'm pretty sure I've made it clear that I don't approve of Trump or his policies. But let's not pretend that there's been some major shift in the US wrt international agreements on climate change. Merkel may choose to pretend there has been, for political reasons, but that's deliberately choosing to ignore reality in favor of image & presentation (you know, the way Trump always does).
Let's not pretend Merkle's remarks were just to do with climate change either.
I think the whole Article 5 thing might have been on her mind a little bit?
The whole climate change thing is deja vu all over again. Why on Earth would anyone expect an unratified Paris Agreement to hold any more water than the unratified Kyoto Protocol?
The idea that people thought a deal was reached with lame duck Obama so therefore America was on board is completely ludicrous post-Kyoto. We all knew full well that it would take Senate agreement too, let alone the successor President still agreeing to it.
Merkel's speech doesn't sound quite as extreme in German as it does in translation. It is however a re-orientation towards European cooperation and away from Atlanticism.
The words themselves matter little. It's the message Merkel and other German politicians have been sending, particularly since the meeting.
And what precisely is new or original or concerning about the message? Are we to believe that Germany is going to take responsibility for its own defence going forwards? If so I have a bridge to sell you ...
Merkel was clearly playing off of the coverage of Trump's NATO-related remarks for the more combative comments while the remarks about Paris are more of a "whatever, be that way".
Perhaps one day the US will help safeguard world peace by spending less on its military, who knows :o
The CDU/CSU have historically been US-friendly.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
It's pushing Germany in that direction. Some small steps have already been taken (integrating some foreign units into the German military); this will open the gates towards far larger steps. And this is from a historically friendly CDU/CSU. The socialists will promise an even sharper divergence.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
http://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-e...e-ethics-rules
Trump Exempts Entire Senior Staff From White House Ethics Rules
https://www.dailydot.com/layer8/dona...infowars-link/
Donald Trump administration issues press release that links to InfoWars article
https://www.yahoo.com/news/four-top-...122423972.html
Four top law firms turned down requests to represent Trump
-“The concerns were, ‘The guy won’t pay and he won’t listen’”
Top law firms are refusing to represent the POTUS because he has a history of stiffing people and a lack of self control. Not to mention the distaste of being associated with his policies and administration.
Lawyers are turning away the President of the United States. What a world!
I'd have more respect if the law firms stated, "We think he might be guilty and generally we like to represent the innocent." Who wakes up in the morning wanting to defend child molesters, rapists and murderers? Not everyone indicted is guilty of course but I have a real hard time with people taking money to defend the worst shits of society. If you get court appointed, I get it, part of the system but people like OJ's lawyers make me sick.