- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
1
Posted on 5/9/19 at 2:25 pm to I B Freeman
quote:we're in a trade war over military secrets with a real enemy that has a suspiciously burgeoning military and ib is worried about a slight drop in the stock market on the 3rd day despite the market having 2 years of encouraging numbers over the last 2 years. these are the people we are trying to reason with.
As we head into our third day of shrinking stock market valuation I am still a little optimistic Trump will agree to something this week
Posted on 5/9/19 at 2:27 pm to bfniii
quote:
lie? what is wrong with hoping for that?
nothing wrong with hoping for a return to the days of our massive bluecollar middle class. but it just won't work that way. false hope is cruel in that kind of a situation
quote:
tariffs seem to be one way of making that happen
nope
Posted on 5/9/19 at 2:29 pm to 90proofprofessional
No union in factory help?
Posted on 5/9/19 at 2:31 pm to 90proofprofessional
quote:yeah. no one has EVER done this with your stupid graphs
maybe look at and consider what the "fred graph" contains once in a while
quote:i'm the one who posted the articles nerd. you're the one who admantly resisted reading them.
should you ever get over that crippling aversion to data
quote:so you didn't substantively respond to ANY of the points i made. you make the childish retort and then call ME lazy. you are insufferable. i've asked several questions itt and you aren't even PRETENDING to "interact with the data"
^ the refrain of the incurably lazy and stupid
Posted on 5/9/19 at 2:33 pm to bfniii
quote:
no one has EVER done this with your stupid graphs
yeah we get it, displays of data are confusing and scary for you
quote:
i'm the one who posted the articles \
you didn't substantively respond to ANY of the points i made. you make the childish retort and then call ME lazy. you are insufferable. i've asked several questions itt and you aren't even PRETENDING to "interact with the data"
you seem to struggle bigtime with the concepts of "substantive" and "data"
This post was edited on 5/9/19 at 2:34 pm
Posted on 5/9/19 at 2:35 pm to 90proofprofessional
quote:read...the...articles. or keep acting like an arse
finding out and reporting how many revisions were downward, out of total revisions under his tenure,
quote:first, "quickly." lol second, "handful." lol. third, "individual." lol. fourth, you realize that your derisive characterization doesn't preclude that the articles are correct, right? fifth, you still aren't "interacting with the data."
quickly googling and linking a handful of articles about individual downward revisions
Posted on 5/9/19 at 2:39 pm to 90proofprofessional
quote:you're seriously using tpp to support your point? you are hopeless
we were damn near all the way there with TPP
quote:so you can't support your point. that's all you had to say.
never change!
HERE YOU GO BUCKEYE - 90npc, prove that you KNOW the future, i.e. the tariffs are going to turn out worse than any alternative you have proposed.
this will be enlightening
Posted on 5/9/19 at 2:43 pm to bfniii
quote:
read...the...articles
are you contending that any of your articles answer that? quote it and link it, or keep acting like an arse
quote:
first, "quickly." lol second, "handful." lol. third, "individual." lol.
all correct.
quote:
you realize that your derisive characterization doesn't preclude that the articles are correct, right?
i don't know how many times i have to tell you i'm not telling you they're wrong. i'm telling you, endlessly it seems, that they don't support the claim you pretend they do.
quote:
fifth, you still aren't "interacting with the data."
it's your claim, and i've patiently explained to you how you can convincingly defend it
we all know you'll continue to pussy out, again
Posted on 5/9/19 at 2:46 pm to 90proofprofessional
quote:and this is why i am highlighting your bluster - because you don't know jack crap yet act like you do when you make your juvenile responses to people who call you out.
I think our current approach cannot resolve our problems with China, and that any token agreement we may eventually get will be vague, superficial, and impossible to enforce
you are just like ib. you are using episodic instances to oppose a systemic problem and not once have either of you posted anything that rebuts your flawed approach. it's been explained to you countless times and you remain recalcitrant. when you get challenged, all you do is obfuscate and tds.
Posted on 5/9/19 at 2:46 pm to bfniii
quote:
you're seriously using tpp to support your point?
proudly
quote:
prove that you KNOW the future, i.e. the tariffs are going to turn out worse than any alternative you have proposed.
if we were in TPP we'd be party to ~17,000 lowered individual tariffs already, with stronger IP protections, and china on the outside looking in
i don't have to see the future, i'm looking at us now with big tariffs on metals and staring down big tariffs on stuff from one of our primary import sources- and note that about 2/3rds of our imports from china aren't consumer goods, they're intermediate/raw/capital goods that support our competitiveness in manufacturing!
Posted on 5/9/19 at 2:51 pm to 90proofprofessional
quote:
bfnii and 90proofprofessional
Posted on 5/9/19 at 2:51 pm to 90proofprofessional
quote:multiple people have given you multiple cases. your "questioning" is doing nothing more than continuing to justify the chinese actions and ignoring the real outcome. then, you respond with this "no you didn't" statement like the situation in the real world is a "weak premise." you're just not even rational. you can't see the mental gymnastics you're having to perform to defend the hilarious tpp and your tds
translation: "no! don't question my weak premise!"
Posted on 5/9/19 at 2:55 pm to 90proofprofessional
quote:so this is you yet again admitting you have no idea what is going to happen nor can you prove your ideas are any better yet, you continue to chide those who oppose you
but it just won't work that way. false hope is cruel in that kind of a situation
quote:so the chinese aren't coming to the us tomorrow to specifically talk trade? the chinese economy isn't down? wow. i've been totally lied to
nope
Posted on 5/9/19 at 2:56 pm to bfniii
quote:
multiple people have given you multiple cases
no one has sniffed supporting the claim of 2 million US jobs a year due to IP. or even 2 million in aggregate
quote:
like the situation in the real world is a "weak premise."
see above
Posted on 5/9/19 at 2:58 pm to 90proofprofessional
quote:it's not the data. it's your application of the data that people have a problem with.
yeah we get it, displays of data are confusing and scary for you
quote:hey buckeye, here's yet another example of what i'm talking about. i directly and specifically challenged 90npc. this is the kind of juvenile, evasive responses i get. 90 is a complete fraud
you seem to struggle bigtime with the concepts of "substantive" and "data"
Posted on 5/9/19 at 3:00 pm to bfniii
quote:
you have no idea what is going to happen
i know we're not returning to our manufacturing workforce of the mid-20th century, trade war or not.
quote:
so the chinese aren't coming to the us tomorrow to specifically talk trade?
uh, yes? and they had been lowering tariffs for years before they had to start raising them again in retaliation to us. and by foregoing TPP we've lost leverage on them and are suffering higher tariffs from everyone else in it, as well as facing higher tariffs from all those TPP countries on their end as well!
quote:
the chinese economy isn't down?
when did i say this? we can certainly damage them more; it doesn't mean it's not hurting us, and it certainly doesn't mean they'll give us everything we want
This post was edited on 5/9/19 at 3:04 pm
Posted on 5/9/19 at 3:03 pm to bfniii
quote:
it's not the data. it's your application of the data that people have a problem with.
interesting how rarely it is ever engaged, then. i mean if it's so self-evidently wrong or wrongly-interpreted.
the issue is that you don't want to hear it. ever. look at how you consistently fail to respond to the very true point about how to convincingly defend your assertion about obama manipulating official economic data.
Posted on 5/9/19 at 3:05 pm to 90proofprofessional
quote:Given the size and singular importance of our market and diminution of US input relative to far smaller, more self-interested parties in the TPP, it is hard for me to fathom how a multilateral trade deal is the "only way" to an acceptable international trade deal.
abandoning the multilateral approach, particularly TPP and TTiP, is abandoning the only way
Posted on 5/9/19 at 3:08 pm to 90proofprofessional
quote:you've got to be kidding. YES YOU CLOWN SHOW. that's PRECISELY what the articles say. the titles of the articles say X and then contain data that show X. you're saying the title says X but the data says Y. well, prove it champ.
are you contending that any of your articles answer that?
quote:this is what happened in the thread. i posted articles to support the point. you want me to "quote" the articles i posted? all 12 articles? why don't you JUST READ THEM. my word. just read the articles and state what you disagree with. you tried that one time and i slammed it down using the very same article you quoted. you have got to be the most insufferable, obtuse person in the history of the internet. what you're asking for is just plain stupid.
quote it and link it
quote:prove it
all correct
quote:OH MY WORD you are just repeating what i've already refuted. IT'S NOT "MY" CLAIM. second, if you think they don't support the claim that is in the titles of the articles, PROVE IT.
that they don't support the claim you pretend they do.
quote:if you read the articles, you would know it's not my claim.
it's your claim
quote:and i responded to this stupid assertion a million times. yet, you keep repeating something that is already refuted. also, lol at "we all."
and i've patiently explained to you how you can convincingly defend it
Page 16 of 19
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News