- Joined
- Oct 13, 2006
- Messages
- 29,374
- Reaction score
- 7,043
Please don't derail my thread by being a stupid piece of shit. Thanks.
So it's not true?
Here is a source you will accept...
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2016/10/15/wiki-o15.html
Please don't derail my thread by being a stupid piece of shit. Thanks.
Stop trying to derail my thread. Thanks.So it's not true?
Here is a source you will accept...
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2016/10/15/wiki-o15.html
Please don't derail my thread by being a stupid piece of shit. Thanks.
It's a perfectly reasonable thread. I presented my viewpoint, it's a sourced current event, and I defended my reasoning.this thread is already a stupid piece of shit, made by a stupid piece of shit. really hard to complain about derails
It's a perfectly reasonable thread. I presented my viewpoint, it's a sourced current event, and I defended my reasoning.
You're just a buttmad idiot who had to create his own safe space on fucking Sherdog. Kick rocks, pussy.
That wasn't a counterpoint. But...but...Obama/Hillary isn't a counterpoint. Do you like this appointment? I was under the impression that you hated W.'s foreign policy, and the MIC? Now that doesn't matter because, but Obama? You, and many other posters in here, are complete irredeemable hacks. No intellectual integrity of any kind, and limited intelligence to boot.except then when someone else brought a counterpoint you asked them to stop and leave LMAO
Stop trying to derail my thread. Thanks.
"And yet, 10 years after NAFTA passed, Senator Clinton said it was good for America," he continued. "Well, I don't think NAFTA has been good for America — and I never have." (Obama)
Many have since expressed a similar take. In a debate featured in the New York Times in 2013, economist Dean Baker argued that, in one sense, NAFTA did what it was supposed to do: It placed downward pressure on wages.
"After all," Baker noted, "one of the main purposes of the agreement was to make U.S. firms feel confident that they could locate operations in Mexico without having to fear that their factories could be nationalized or that Mexico would impose restrictions on repatriating profits."
At least, that is the argument President Obama is making as he prepares for a final push to pressure lawmakers into backing the Trans-Pacific Partnership, an agreement that has been deemed "NAFTA on steroids" by critics who believe it will further erode labor conditions, harm the environment, and grant corporations unprecedented power.
To put it very, very simply: no Joe the Plumber could run a Pentagon or even a Post Office.
Neat, he put an expert on weapons and weapons manufacturing into that job
What kind of person did you want? A politician or """academic"""" who's ever worked in the industry?
But he can run for president.
Sauce for the goose Mr. Thompson.
https://www.commondreams.org/views/...bama-aligns-big-business-smash-opposition-tpp
First he be all:
Then he be like:
Yeah, why bother with a sovereign high ranking military official when you can insert a MIC fat cat with glaring conflicts of interest in facilitating the usage of and demand for military equipment.
Sauce for the goose Mr. Thompson.
https://www.commondreams.org/views/...bama-aligns-big-business-smash-opposition-tpp
First he be all:
Then he be like:
its a constant thing where these people think big business=evil, so if youve worked in big business you can never be trusted to work in a government role
the best and brightest are the ones that make it to the top, a goldman sachs or lockheed martin executive would probably go circles around any professor/analyst in their field. otherwise that professor/analyst would be making more money being an executive
i dont get the idea that every executive is evil scum and should never be trusted
If that isn't "The Swamp" than what did "Drain the Swamp" mean?