All that means is that the dollar has risen, so now it’s cheaper for Americans to vacation overseas. Obama destroyed the domestic tourism industry!
You know all that hard quoting work you did will amount to nothing. Clot doesn’t have the courage of his convictions. Next time he comes back to this thread, he’ll post some other bromide he got from Fox news/Breitbart/Limbaugh and dismiss everything we posted in response to his previous squawk as liberal whining.
A win is a win. By your reasoning, George W. Bush should get credit for whacking bin Laden since he was the one that started the effort. It merely happened on Obama’s watch.
I had to laugh at the concept of Hillary being more stable at anything.
Businesses were sitting on piles of cash because of the business-unfriendly atmosphere of the Obama administration. They’re now starting to spend it under Trump. They wouldn’t be under Hillary.
From the Border Patrol itself. Californian destination states see home prices skyrocket - Washington Examiner
I’m not seeing mixed signals. And we need to be out NOW. It’s a shame that we didn’t just pack up and walk away like we should have.
Lighting a fire under Congress’s collective ass to fund it instead of dicking around with it would be a good start. Everyone is so scared of offending Mexico and Mexicans that they pull themselves into a hole in the ground and say “Lalalalathere’s no problem with illegal aliens”.
http://time.com/money/4535394/obamacare-plan-premium-price-increases-2017-states/
Actually, no - you didn’t. As shown above.
[quote]
It’s strange that you claim we aren’t “informed” and yet we are able to back up our claims with substantive information. You can’t, won’t, or at the very least haven’t./QUOTE]
As shown above. No substantive information, and I do base my claims on substantive information.
Like the 8 years of Obama fuckups that you can’t itemize?
Why does congress need to fund the wall? Isn’t Mexico paying for it?
The point is that anyone sitting in the whitehouse chair could have done what he did regarding the Justice. Its no harder than ordering a meal at a Chinese restaurant. You pick a name at random from the list of candidates provided by congress, and then wait for your senate majority to overturn two hundred years of senate precedent by eliminating the filibuster and vote for him. Any idiot can get his nominees approved if he has a majority in the senate (well almost any idiot).
Then you haven’t been paying attention
Nooooo, the reason the wall isn’t getting any interest in Congress is because it’s infeasible. Surveyors and engineers have already pointed out the inability to construct a wall along the Rio Grande because of canyons and gaping parts of earth. It’s not a perfectly flat desert and it would stretch across 2000 or so miles. Not all the land it crosses is suitable to support that size of a structure. Repubs in Congress don’t want to add a mammoth boondoggle to the national budget when they’re SUPPOSED to be trimming the budget and lowering taxes. Fucking Trump keeps sabotaging their efforts and expecting them to magically produce money from thin air to support his whims.
Quit focusing on how much the liberals piss you off and you might actually understand the economic disaster this vanity project would produce.
There’s more. If you put the wall on US soil, you cut off access to the Rio Grande. But really, who needs a river? If the Idiot-in-Charge wants to build it mid-river, Mexico should and hopefully would harass him non-stop with Mexico’s own environmental impact surveys and the like. Not that a NY developer cares about environmental impacts or what any neighbor might think, but it will make him look worse and worse and hopefully (wishfully?) mobilize far more hispanic voters in 2018 and beyond.
We’re going to loan them the money. Its a buddy deal, they don’t even have to sign anything, promise to pay it back.
You’d have a valid argument if Bush hadn’t overtly abandoned the search for bin Laden after six months. If he’d kept it up, bin Laden would probably have been caught on Bush’s watch.
Whatever makes you happy, but in comparison to the Tweeter-in-Chief she’s a goddamn rock.
I work in the financial sector and this is nonsense. Credit and investments dried up as a result of the global financial crash in 2006, in large part because those products offering the most attractive rates of investment returns (and in particular CDOs) were revealed to be significantly higher-risk than previously represented and businesses, who had understandably become very risk-averse until the recovery was well underway, found it more prudent to adopt a conservative approach in the short- to medium-term. The government (governments, really, including the UK et alia) actually had to prod businesses (banks in particular) to pump more money into the financial system to overcome the effects of the recession.
Obviously it’s a lot more complex than that but “businesses weren’t investing because Obama was a big meanie” is not even remotely accurate. It reminds me of the claims from the right that Obama was blocking domestic oil production which also turned out to be inverse to reality.
…based on projections from the border apprehensions figure I already mentioned. (And really? The Washington Examiner?)
You’re not seeing mixed signals because you get your news from sources like the Washington Examiner, but a relevant cite has already been provided. And government policy affecting all levels of government cannot be stopped on a dime even if all parties involved are in agreement - moreso when international treaties are involved.
As already noted, the reason has nothing to do with either not offending Mexico or ignoring illegal aliens and everything to do with the fact that the Wall as promised isn’t physically possible to build without a massive budget and a massive environmental impact. And that’s ignoring the fact that it won’t work. So in short: 1) It can’t be built; 2) if it were built, it would have a serious effect on southern Texas; 3) The effect on illegal immigration would be minimal; and 4) it would cost the US taxpayer tens if not hundreds of billions.
I concede that occasionally you cite a source that supports your view.
Not happy with Washington Examiner as a source? Perhaps Newscorp would say it better,
*… “The facts have not changed. Building a wall is the most expensive and least effective way to secure the border,” said GOP Rep. Will Hurd, whose sprawling West Texas swing district encompasses more than 800 miles of the border. “Many areas in my district are perfect examples of where a wall is unnecessary and would negatively impact the environment, private property rights and economy.”
…
“There’s any number of complications,” said former House Appropriations Committee Chairman Harold Rogers, R-Ky., citing obstacles like Indian reservations and national parks and forests. And much of the remaining 1,300 miles is very rough terrain, with steep construction costs and a limited return for the dollar. “It’s expensive and it’s complicated.” Hundreds of miles of the border are so rugged and inhospitable that it doesn’t make sense to even try to build.
And, in Texas, almost all of the land along the border is privately owned. When former President George W. Bush tried to build border fencing starting in 2006 he faced stiff opposition from local ranchers and farmers, many of whom took the government to court on plans to use their land.
…
A popular golf course near the border in Brownsville was cut off from the rest of the city by border fencing and was forced to close in 2015. “We have built a fence along the border almost as much as we possibly can without violating tribal laws, environmental requirements, and taking over peoples’ personal, private property,” said Michelle Mrdeza, who worked for the House Appropriations panel during the fence debate of the mid-2000s.
…
Cost estimates prepared a decade ago already varied widely. A 2009 Government Accountability Office analysis put costs at $6.5 million a mile for pedestrian fencing and $1.8 million per mile for vehicular blockades. An actual wall constructed of concrete or brick would be more costly and difficult.*
But that is just LSM claptrap.
FYI: as it turns out there was a bit more to the story that makes the students offense pretty reasonable.
So it wasn’t just that he had a cotton centerpiece at his house and a bunch of black students suddenly took offense, its that he specifically chose that centerpiece to accompany his other racial stereotyping.
Of course the rightwing media pushing this story are omitting that part of it in their reporting.
How does the Lipscomb University dinner relate to the Hobby Lobby issue? Because both have cotton plants?
NB: that link is from the OP of this thread.
NM: I mixed up the University complaint with the Hobby Lobby complaint. :smack:
Score card:
Complaining about a professor having a raw cotton table setting: Stupid
Complaining about a professor using a raw cotton table setting at a soul food meeting because he thinks it will help him relate to his African American Students: Justified
Complaining about Hobby Lobby selling the arrangements that the racially clueless Professor used: Stupid
OK, yeah, FUCKING STUPID, can’t pretend otherwise here.
That they got rid of her within hours rather than days and several prayer sessions shows a bit more sensitivity than the usual right wing antics.
Oh, ye gods and little fishes, what a complete idiot. Absolutely shit-for-brains.
Also someone the Right will trot out regularly to show that all liberals are scum. Way to score an own goal, fuckwit.
I’m pretty far left, and I support her firing.
However, the right wing nut jobs who emailed death threats to her and her family should be arrested, prosecuted, convinced, and jailed. You gotta love the right wing nut jobs, it’s like they see bad behavior on the left and they say “hold my beer”.
I still don’t think she shoud have been fired, but I am starting to notice that a tactic beloved more by the left than the right has been more likely to hurt liberals than conservatives.