Printable View
[QUOTE=CheckMate1;2804838]Always go to the source and read a little.
[URL]https://www.secretservice.gov/about/faq/general[/URL][/QUOTE]Here you go, from the source.
"How long do former presidents receive Secret Service protection after they leave office?
In 1965, Congress authorized the Secret Service (Public Law 89-186) to protect a former president and his / her spouse during their lifetime, unless they decline protection. ".
[QUOTE=JustTK;2804913]Great piece on the latest dangers posed to US hegemony by the likely expansion of BRICS, as a result of USA foriegn policy bullying.
[URL]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnCudOKNzm0[/URL][/QUOTE]Like we'll be seeing Yuan quotes at your local cambio everywhere? With the smallest spread on the board?
Otherwise, what's to think about? Unless you are like twenty-years' old and if you are and you're here at that age, then you've got other, bigger problems going on than exchange rates.
[QUOTE=Elvis2008;2805079]BRIC was termed made by some Goldman Sachs banker artificially linking large third world economies. It was named in 2001, and I first heard of it in 2004.
I have been listening to the dollar's demise going on for decades now, and anyone dumb enough to have invested in that idea has gotten killed. The dollar will be the world's reserve currency for the next 100 years.[/QUOTE]There is nothing artificial about BRICS. It is an official organisation. They have a forum planned for August 2023 in Durban. SA have invited Putin and already have refused the notion of having him arrested. There are plenty of countries now wanting to join BRICS, no doubt the majority of the ex or current victims of USA intimidation and crimes. Iran, Argentina and Algeria have applied to join BRICS. Indonesia, Egypt, Nigeria and Saudi Arabia could become part of the association. It already represents 40% of the world's population. The expanded BRICS would easily take it past 50%.
It doesn't have to replace the USD, simply offer an alternative for abused countries.
[QUOTE=Golfinho;2805109]Like we'll be seeing Yuan quotes at your local cambio everywhere? With the smallest spread on the board?
Otherwise, what's to think about? Unless you are like twenty-years' old and if you are and you're here at that age, then you've got other, bigger problems going on than exchange rates.[/QUOTE]Sorry, I have no idea what you mean.
[QUOTE=Elvis2008;2804873]Yawn. Another Democratic douche saying this is about the law and not political. Ha ha!
[URL]https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11922695/Alan-Dershowitz-says-Trump-trial-moved-STATEN-ISLAND.html[/URL]
Dershowitz said that Trump's hush money case, filed by the Manhattan the, was impossibly prejudiced owing to Manhattan being a Democrat stronghold.
Dershowitz said the trial should be held instead in Staten Island. The only one of New York City's five boroughs to regularly vote Republican.
And you know what the chances are this case is moved to Staten Island CM, slim and none, and slim just left town.
Oh yeah, this is all about the law. Did your nose grow as you typed that?[/QUOTE]Does New York State law state that a misdemeanor to cover up another misdemeanor can be tried as a felony? Yes.
Did Donnie the Dumbass "cook the books" and mis-report the hush money payment to Stormy as something else? Yes, and it needs to be proven in court.
Was the above mis-reporting of the payment designed to assist Donnie the Dumbass in winning the 2016 election? Yes, and it needs to be proven in court.
Did a New York grand jury decide to indict (or is it indicate?) Donnie the Dumbass? Yes.
Will Donnie the Dumbass get his "day in court"? Yes.
Does every Repub in the USA believe that any trial of Donnie the Dumbass is political. Duh, yes.
Does every Repub in the USA believe that Donnie the Dumbass is above the law. Duh, yes.
[QUOTE=EihTooms;2805061]You'll find it next to the "Repub Stewardship Producing Every Great Recession And Massive Jobs Destruction of the Past 100 Years and None of the Historic Expansions and Jobs Creation is Merely a Wild, Inexplicable Coincidence" file and right there after the "No USA-involved Wars Were Started Under Repubs, only Dems, Oh Except For The Civil War, the Vietnam War, The War in Kuwait, The War in Afghanistan, The War in Iraq, etc" file.[/QUOTE]Much of this isn't true, and has been comprehensively demonstrated as untrue many times here on this thread, especially with evidence of significant economic expansion and success during the 1950's under Ike, and in the unassailable fact that knee jerk Southern Democrats caused the Civil War with their fear and insistence on preserving the institution of slavery. They also began the hostilities. But it's actually hilarious when we have a bored, California leftist camped out in Southeast Asia on here daily so hell bent on preserving a Repub / Dem fake dichotomy that he reaches back to the Civil War to blame the liberal party of the day. Lolol Reminds me of the conservatives that want to blame modern Dems for the KKK, same gross error as over time the roles of the parties have reversed.
But anyway I've already posted my links and evidence a dozen times and am not doing it again, but this is the fallacy Tooms has going, twist or ignore all rebuttals and keep repeating the same errant talking points over and over. My retirement is just around the corner and I sure hope I find better things to do on a daily basis than that. Wink.
[URL]https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_nauseam[/URL]
He has these going as well, the old false dichotomy and black and white thinking error.
[URL]https://www.studysmarter.us/explanations/english/rhetoric/false-dichotomy/[/URL]
[URL]https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/black-or-white[/URL]
Why did the southern Democrats secede from the Union? "State rights, correct?" State rights to do WHAT? Own slaves. They tell you with their own words, in the minutes of state legislatures concerned with secession and in precise comments from the leaders of the Confederacy. Yea the southern Democrats not only fired the first shot but in all other respects caused the Civil War. Slavery was the very motivation of their actions. No amount of "Democrat good / Republican Bad" posturing day after day even back to 1860 in a hooker forum is going to change that (eyeroll).
[URL]https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/secession-the-confederate-flag-and-slavery[/URL]
Would be nice if it were never necessary, or if we didn't need armed police departments or personal self defense, but that's not the real world. And since when did Republicans "start" the "War in Kuwait?" Lolol This was a multi-national, UN sanctioned response to Iraq's invasion. Iraq was repeatedly warned to get out but refused. Today Kuwait is an important partner in the region, and our relations with them are good and cooperative.
[URL]https://mei.edu/publications/beyond-post-desert-storm-how-elevate-us-kuwait-security-partnership[/URL]
It's also worth asking what the future would have looked like had Lincoln not acted to preserve the Union. We likely would not be the great nation we are today. How would the world wars have turned out? Though a "Republican Lolol" (whatever that meant in 1861) Lincoln's place among America's greatest heros is deserved.
But anyway I got enough going here to keep Tooms scrambling and typing away for the best part of a morning or afternoon, and that's the objective. There's plenty enough hyper-partisan websites and far left anti-war hogwash online for him to come up with something to ramble on about.
[QUOTE=Paulie97;2805827]Would be nice if it were never necessary, or if we didn't need armed police departments or personal self defense, but that's not the real world. And since when did Republicans "start" the "War in Kuwait?" Lolol This was a multi-national, UN sanctioned response to Iraq's invasion. Iraq was repeatedly warned to get out but refused. Today Kuwait is an important partner in the region, and our relations with them are good and cooperative.
[URL]https://mei.edu/publications/beyond-post-desert-storm-how-elevate-us-kuwait-security-partnership[/URL]
It's also worth asking what the future would have looked like had Lincoln not acted to preserve the Union. We likely would not be the great nation we are today. How would the world wars have turned out? Though a "Republican Lolol" (whatever that meant in 1861) Lincoln's place among America's greatest heros is deserved..[/QUOTE]My "files" examples were reactions to recent Repub Winger posts.
One Repub Winger, Tiny, recently posted this:
[QUOTE]However, in the end, I believe the researchers came up with a spurious correlation, like Tooms' spurious correlations between Republican Presidents and recessions, lower GDP growth, higher unemployment, and a pandemic. Or mine between Democratic Presidents and the number of Americans who've died in wars that started when they were in office. There's no cause and effect.[/QUOTE]I notice you, already a highly suspect advertant or inadvertent pro Repub Winger Bothsider / Neithersider, offered no objections to another Repub Winger alluding to dead Americans in wars REGARDLESS whether or not the Dem in the WH had anything whatsoever to do with "starting" it. No problem with you in him doing that, right?
And you will now please notice something you presumably failed to notice or refused to notice in my "files" examples to which you devoted not one but two outraged objections replies; I did not say anything about wars "started" by the POTUS at the time.
Another Repub Winger, Elvis, even more recently posted this:
[QUOTE]To me, it is not even Democrat or Republican any more, it is pro or antiwar party presidents. Bernie Sanders is anti-war party and you can be damned sure he will never get a nomination. That is what this is really all about. A trump victory means no more trillion dollar blowjobs to the defense industry.[/QUOTE]The clear inference being Dems are "pro war" while Trump's Repub Party is "antiwar". Lololol.
Please note that TWO recent presidents ordered boots-on-the-ground combat by USA military in the THREE most recent wars in which the USA military fought; Kuwait, Afghanistan and Iraq.
Neither of them were Dems.
Biden has not ordered such a thing.
Obama did not order such a thing.
Clinton did not order such a thing.
Carter did not order such a thing.
Again, not one word of objection from you about that mischaracterization of which Party is pro war and which Party is antiwar. Interesting, isn't it?
Next.
Now, the only thing I recall you providing that suggested those Happy Days under Ike were good for the working man was some opinion piece where the dude who wrote it said so without any linked data to substantiate that opinion.
By stark contrast, I provided links showing the USA suffered through three, not one, not two, but three Recessions during Ike's 8 years in office, that his economy produced one of the worst jobs creating records in the past century and that the working man in America was so opposed to him and his Party that every major labor union in the country endorsed his right hand man's Dem opponent in 1960.
You got anything to refute the actual data, the verifiable record of results and the historical facts about that yet? Or do you only have your recommendation to watch a couple of episodes of Happy Days to see how much fun it looked like Ritchie and The Fonz were having at the time?
[QUOTE=EihTooms;2806012]My "files" examples were reactions to recent Repub Winger posts.
One Repub Winger, Tiny, recently posted this:
Another Repub Winger, Elvis, even more recently posted this:[/QUOTE]How do you take a post where I am complimenting Bernie freaking Sanders on being anti-war and call that a right winger post?
Oh right, I forgot who I was talking about. There is no such thing as an antiwar and prowar party. Everything HAS to be split into Republicans and Democrats.
And all the prowar Dems (Wilson, FDR, Truman, LBJ) do not count. Only the Bushes count. Sigh. Bagdad Bob strikes again.
Republicans bad, Dems good, and the facts do not matter. Hell, that should be your tag line Tooms.
[QUOTE=JustTK;2805141]It doesn't have to replace the USD, simply offer an alternative for abused countries.[/QUOTE]TK, I just showed you that you have no data to back that up.
Take your worker in Colombia versus El Salvador where the dollar is used versus a native currency. You take a worker who saves a $1000 a year in Colombia versus El Salvador. Twenty years later, the guy in El Salvador has double what the guy in Colombia does because the Colombian Peso has gone to shit without even taking into account interest. Toss that in and the guy in El Salvador is on the order of 3 to 4 X richer than the guy in Colombia.
So are you for people being poorer? And then there is this bullshit about USA oppression? The truth is the USA has done a better job of managing its currency than Colombia has and almost all other parts of the world. Only Europe and the Euro can come close.
And BRICS? China is the largest economy in BRICS, and their currency is propped up and pegged to the dollar, and you do not see much of it being exchanged in the currency markets because China does not let out that much of it out. If China let the yuan float, it would be devalued in no time.
Everything with you is the USA abuses other nations when the truth is so many countries print up money to solve their problems thus devaluing their currency. All third world countries are good; it is just the USA is evil.
The USA has never defaulted on its debt. Argentina and Venezuela have gone bankrupt like a combined 20 times, and they have not had any crippling wars like Europe or even Asia has had. Your blaming the USA lets those nations and their shitty monetary policies off the hook.
There are plenty of instances of American policy fucking countries up. Maybe you can name a few where the USA is actually guilty of doing something wrong versus just blaming us for everything.
[QUOTE=Elvis2008;2806331]How do you take a post where I am complimenting Bernie freaking Sanders on being anti-war and call that a right winger post?
Oh right, I forgot who I was talking about. There is no such thing as an antiwar and prowar party. Everything HAS to be split into Republicans and Democrats.
And all the prowar Dems (Wilson, FDR, Truman, LBJ) do not count. Only the Bushes count. Sigh. Bagdad Bob strikes again.
Republicans bad, Dems good, and the facts do not matter. Hell, that should be your tag line Tooms.[/QUOTE]Bernie Sanders is not a Dem. A pro Repub pretend Bothsider vote for a useless in reality Third Party Socialist candidate Bernie Sanders in a national election might as well be an outright vote for the America-hating Repub candidate. But you already know that.
Your post suggested Trump's Repub Party is antwar. They initiated boots-on-the-ground USA combat maneuvers in all of the past three wars in which the USA fought over the past 35 years. Dems? Zero.
LOL. You even praised Repub Trump for not giving the defense industry a Trillion Dollar blowjob but he sure gave a good imitation of giving it a whopping $750 Billion blowjob. What was that worth in blowjob terms? One less stroke at the finish?
BTW, I'm sure Paulie will jump in any minute now to slam you for all those "falsehoods" and point out that Wilson did not "start" WW1, the same with FDR re WW2, Truman re the Korean War and, of course, LBJ re the Vietnam War, where Ike had already replaced French military boots-on-the-ground with USA boots-on-the-ground by 1954, about a year before the Vietnam War officially began by many historian's assessment.
Out of the 623,715 USA military fatalities during the 20th and 21st centuries, 602,450 occurred under Democrat Presidents:
[URL]https://www.statista.com/statistics/1009819/total-us-military-fatalities-in-american-wars-1775-present/[/URL]
Most of the 21,267 deaths under Republicans occurred in Vietnam, when President Nixon was extracting us from that conflict, which LBJ started.
So Democrat Presidents are responsible for over 95% of the deaths of our young men and women.
Democrats are a bloodthirsty lot. A Democratic Party president will start a war at the drop of a hat to boost his approval rating. Democrats know the best way to win an election or pull the country out of a recession is to start a war.
And this post, like all my others on this topic, is satirical. Like I said, there's no cause and effect. For some reason Tooms feels compelled to argue against what I'm labeling as a spurious correlation. I do not believe Democrats are any more responsible for war deaths than Republicans.
[QUOTE=Paulie97;2805621]Why did the southern Democrats secede from the Union? "State rights, correct?" State rights to do WHAT? Own slaves. They tell you with their own words, in the minutes of state legislatures concerned with secession and in precise comments from the leaders of the Confederacy. Yea the southern Democrats not only fired the first shot but in all other respects caused the Civil War. Slavery was the very motivation of their actions. No amount of "Democrat good / Republican Bad" posturing day after day even back to 1860 in a hooker forum is going to change that (eyeroll).
[URL]https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/secession-the-confederate-flag-and-slavery[/URL][/QUOTE]Yes, it is curious that Tooms is compelled to label the Civil War as a Republican War. Presumably if he maintains that the present day Republican Party should accept responsibility for the Civil War, then he believes present day Democrats should accept responsibility for slavery and 100 years of Jim Crow and repression afterwards.
[QUOTE=EihTooms;2806538]BTW, I'm sure Paulie will jump in any minute now to slam you for all those "falsehoods" and point out that Wilson did not "start" WW1, the same with FDR re WW2, Truman re the Korean War and, of course, LBJ re the Vietnam War, where Ike had already replaced French military boots-on-the-ground with USA boots-on-the-ground by 1954, about a year before the Vietnam War officially began by many historian's assessment.[/QUOTE]Agreed except for the Vietnam War. Only two Congressmen voted against the Gulf of Tonkin resolution, so it's not fair to pin the War entirely on LBJ. However you mischaracterize Eisenhower's role. Only nine out of 58,220 American casualties in Vietnam occurred during the Eisenhower administration.
[URL]https://www.archives.gov/research/military/vietnam-war/casualty-statistics[/URL]
Now that I've cleared that up, it would be nice if you'd admit that Republican Presidents weren't responsible for recessions in 1981, 1990, and 2008, and the 2020 pandemic.
[QUOTE=Elvis2008;2806331]How do you take a post where I am complimenting Bernie freaking Sanders on being anti-war and call that a right winger post?
[/QUOTE]Indeed.
[QUOTE=EihTooms;2806538]Bernie Sanders is not a Dem. A pro Repub pretend Bothsider vote for a useless in reality Third Party Socialist candidate Bernie Sanders in a national election might as well be an outright vote for the America-hating Repub candidate. [/QUOTE]So say Bernie Sanders, the #2 vote getter in the Democratic primaries in 2016 and 2020, had been running against Trump in the general election, instead of Clinton and Biden respectively. Would a vote for Sanders effectively be an outright vote for Trump?
That said, you are wise to view Sanders with suspicion. Like Elvis, I like Sanders' anti-war stance. But if he had become president I would have high tailed it out of the country. I might have ended up one of your neighbors in the Land of Smiles!
[QUOTE=Tiny12;2806702]Out of the 623,715 USA military fatalities during the 20th and 21st centuries, 602,450 occurred under Democrat Presidents:
[URL]https://www.statista.com/statistics/1009819/total-us-military-fatalities-in-american-wars-1775-present/[/URL]
Most of the 21,267 deaths under Republicans occurred in Vietnam, when President Nixon was extracting us from that conflict, which LBJ started.
So Democrat Presidents are responsible for over 95% of the deaths of our young men and women.
Democrats are a bloodthirsty lot. A Democratic president will start a war at the drop of a hat to boost his approval rating and pump money into the economy.
And this post, like all my others on this topic, is satirical. Like I said, there's no cause and effect. For some reason Tooms feels compelled to argue against what I'm labeling as a spurious correlation. I do not believe Democrats are any more responsible for war deaths than Republicans.
Yes, it is curious that Tooms is compelled to label the Civil War as a Republican War. Presumably if he maintains that the present day Republican Party should accept responsibility for the Civil War, then he believes present day Democrats should accept responsibility for slavery and 100 years of Jim Crow and repression afterwards.
Agreed except for the Vietnam War. Only two Congressmen voted against the Gulf of Tonkin resolution, so it's not fair to pin the War entirely on LBJ. However you mischaracterize Eisenhower's role. Only nine out of 58,220 American casualties in Vietnam occurred during the Eisenhower administration.
[URL]https://www.archives.gov/research/military/vietnam-war/casualty-statistics[/URL]
Now that I've fessed up, it would be nice if you'd admit that Republican Presidents weren't responsible for recessions in 1981, 1990, and 2008, and the 2020 pandemic.[/QUOTE]Yours is one of the most disingenuous, intellectually dishonest posts that I have read in a long, long time. Let's have a look at the 10 deadliest wars in American history:
[URL]https://www.marketwatch.com/story/americas-10-deadliest-wars-2014-05-23[/URL]
1. American Civil War = Republican President: and to say that it doesn't count because it was a different Republican party from a long time ago is a bunch of malarky!
2. World War 2 = Democratic President: America was sucker punched by Japan and Hitler was running amuck around Europe and North Africa. If ever there was a war worth fighting this one was it!
3. World War 1 = Democratic President: we should have dealt with the Hun more appropriately then (was too punitive a peace towards Germany), and had we, then we could have headed off the rise of the Nazis.
4. Vietnam War = Republican President: to be fair this tragic war spanned a number of administrations, but it was a Republican who got us into it (Eisenhower) and a Republican who oversaw our shameful withdrawal in defeat from it (Nixon).
5, Korean War = Republican President: Vietnam wasn't enough no sir so the GOP dragged us kicking and screaming into another east Asian war (excuse me "police action" that would be).
6. Mexican-American War = Democratic President: this war of aggression against Mexico goes even further back than the American Civil War so, if in your view the latter doesn't count against a changed Republican party, how in the world can you hold with a straight face that this one should count against a Democratic party that too has changed over time?
7. Iraq War (there were actually two) = Republican President: need I really say more (the GOP started this mess in search of weapons of mass destruction [B]mission accomplished[/B])?
8. Revolutionary War = Non-partisan President: no comment other than this one goes [B]way, way[/B] back!
9. Spanish-American War = Republican President: the GOP was in the White House when this "yellow journalism" fueled war allowed one of the most disgusting Republican war mongers of all time Theodore Roosevelt to rise to fame and eventually seize the Oval Office himself.
10. Afghanistan War = Republican President: well old Georgie boy was at it again, and Donald Chump left Biden standing there holding a stinky bag of shit!
What say ye now my fellows?