Conservative Ideology: A Big Lie

[Farfromgeneva]

Frankly, tariffs are about the stupidest way to try to incentivize businesses to move operations to the US...they work miserably and create all sorts of unintended outcomes in response. Just dumb...and most of us understood that was the case when Trump was blustering away and the rubes were buying his con.

"Stupidest"? Oh, I am sure there are plenty of far more stupid ways to go about generating more local production. Generally speaking every econ class will tell you that tariffs destroy value - but don't get me started on economists... the smartest thing I have heard an economist say is "in the long run, we're all dead" - which of course is an indictment of their own field of study....

Yes, lots of potential unintended consequences. But just because YOU don't like the consequences doesn't mean they are dumb. The argument that tariffs are interfering in free capitalism is specious. We already interfere in free capitalism everyday - it is just that 200 years of imperialism based economic theory has favored capital over labor - it is so ingrained in our economic system we don't even recognize the (as afan would point out) socialism embedded in our support for the export of labor to the cheapest source and the import of commodities from the cheapest source. Of course "cheap" is all based on the amount of money spent on them - not the full cost. When the labor pool of a developing country lives in conditions that would make slave-holders of 200 years ago blush, while the heads of state live like kings ... what is the true cost of that labor? When a developing country allows environmental destruction to be left in the wake of silica mining for solar panels, again while the heads of state buy homes in Monaco and US developers get rich - what is the true cost of that silica?

So yes, tariffs shift the balance of influence away from consumption and toward production. It means all sorts of things become more expensive. But does it mean our citizens' quality of life gets better or worse? We have to stop measuring everything in terms of increasing volume of consumption - that is ultimately a losing game for humanity.

Another point worth considering is how big a deterrent tariffs really will pose to foreign producers selling their goods into the US. The US is, and will be for some time, the biggest consumer market in the world - other countries WILL get their goods into our market, they just won't be able to take advantage of different regulatory costs when doing so. I, for one, would be glad to see that. Of course some countries will retaliate. The question is which ones, will they retaliate across product lines, and what impact will that have on US producers' ability to access foreign markets. Complex systems are complex!

Of course Trump was blustering, that is all he does. But sometimes he will bluster about smart things he heard someone else say. I am not sure his tariff bluster was smart or stupid. I don't think anybody could know because there was not enough meat on the bones to actually evaluate it. But on that topic MD - I gotta tell you the comment about "Just dumb...and most of us understood that was the case" comes across as more than a little arrogant. My response is - most of "you" understood exactly what CNN or Fox and all the right and virtuous people in polite society told you to understand. There was never enough detail provided to even begin to understand a) what Trump was actually proposing be done or b) how it would be implemented. Because the clown that Trump is, he had no idea himself

I am not saying Trump's "tariffs" would have accomplished anything. I never even talked about Trump in my comments, I talked about tariffs in general. This tendency for everyone to want to bring everything back to Trump is counterproductive. So many people are letting him live rent-free in their heads and he feeds of that. I am not a Trump fan - but I am a realist. From the time he announced his candidacy it was clear that he was tapping into the polarization that is going on across the world as we fall back to what amounts to an imperialist global economy - only this time under the guise of a global corporatist economy. Just like the kings, tsars and queens of old had more in common with each other than with their subjects - the self-anointed elite share more values across national boundaries than they do with their own countrymen and women. More and more, the regular Joe's believe that those that are supposed to be serving them are actually working against them. Responsible people can recognize that and change how they are approaching leadership, or scumbags like Trump will do it instead. So far, I am not feeling good about how that is going to play out.

To execute on something with the consequences of this without thinking at all, even if it’s the right dies from someone else and got lucky, is dumb, unprofessional and not fit to be president or representative of anyone else in this country. To no consider or be thoughtful at all is disqualifying. The risk to all of us in having that as leader is simply too high if a f**k up were to occur. And he ha malcontent in his design we all know. Our best interests are not anywhere in his remedial calculations on choices made

[MDlaxfan76]

Actually want to accomplish something beneficial for certain sectors, certain regions in the US?
Use other tools. Carefully.

I am particularly a fan of Carefully.

I am always suspicious of absolutes, so when you say they always destroy value and do more harm than good, it is in my nature to want to push back.

But here's the deal on tariffs - when globalism fulfills its utopian promise, the standard of living in every country will be the same. At that point the benefit of cheap labor goes away and imports and exports will be driven by differences in regional expertise. In that world the only reason for tariffs would be to protect people who are worse at making something from someone who is better - so they only make sense in the context of strategic defense (every country is going to want people who know how to make weapons for example). The tariffs I am talking about are tariffs designed to counter people in power profiting off of the poverty of their citizens. This is the case for targeted tariffs used to balance the scales around differences in regulatory and employment realities of different countries. Those in power in the West don't want tariffs even like these because they are participating in the spoils of the system.

I don't understand is what you mean by "might work depending on what you value"

- the explanation is more philosophy than economics. Let's just say that if we measure everything by dollars and volume of consumption, I think we are missing the boat. I am not saying I have a better way to do it, just that our way of even thinking about these things is pretty shallow and short-term in nature.

I didn't bring up Trump's tariffs, you did.

You're right. But, you did leave out "He talked a big game, but didn't seem to follow through in the details." I was trying to differentiate between a potentially real and strategic tariff policy and whatever bluster Trump was spewing.

But I was absolutely wrong when I said "I never even talked about Trump" because of course I did.

yes, I didn't think I was actually arguing with you about your views of Trump, which are largely congruent with my own, based on your prior comments.

Let me first say that I don't buy into any utopian vision, whether of globalism or any other ideology or strategy. That said, at least the direction you suggest is fair to ascribe to globalism and free trade, though it's less about equal level than larger and larger pie for all, increased standards of living for all. I think that's probably the best we can hope for, not equalization.

And I'm with you on eschewing absolutes, but I'd suggest that there really is always value destruction in tariff war battles; I'm unaware of any such in history in which that wasn't the case.

However, I agree with you that there are indeed "values" that we don't think of normally as 'economic' that may be enhanced, rather than destroyed, by whatever tool set (including tariffs) might be employed to do so...and the enhanced value, say of human rights, may well be more desirable than economic efficiency and the prosperity from such...but again, I think there are better tools than tariffs, which tend to very much backfire if they get spiraling back and forth.

So, gotta be very careful...

[HooDat]

so they pushed it towards hard sciences for their own personal benefit as a institution (the profession of teaching economics) just like they’d teach in Political Economics. Reality is it’s a very elegant way of describing the world in terms of how humans act/behave and allocate resources but for projecting and forecasting it’s marginally better than local meteorologists. Valuable field but misunderstood largely.

As an anthropology minor, I admire the thought processes generated by economistic thinking - but as you say, when they decided to be "hard sciences" in order to get money they lost the plot. The way of thinking around economics became too entwined with valuing everything in terms of $'s, and assuming away inconvenient truths in the pursuit of putting forward "concrete" actionable conclusions.

and the enhanced value, say of human rights, may well be more desirable than economic efficiency and the prosperity from such

These are things that have been missing from the hard science of economic thinking that permeates our political discourse - the exception being the more philosophical variations being explored in some corners of academia.

Our best interests are not anywhere in his remedial calculations on choices made

Yep Trump only cares about Trump, and perversely he mostly only seems to care about how he is perceived. His insecurities are what define him - and what make him dangerous.

[dislaxxic]

Who remembers at whose feet Old Soviet USED to worship?

Ex-CIA Director Says Today’s GOP Is Most Dangerous Political Force He’s Ever Seen

..

So you can't make a point without insulting OS in the process. Thank you Dis for proving my point about the hate filled anger and rage displayed towards a decorated and dedicated naval officer who gave more to his country than a whiney pipsqueak like you ever even thought about giving. You should be ashamed of yourself but showing respect towards OS even when you disagree with him ain't in your wheelhouse is it??? No need to worry Dis, you have plenty of company on this forum when it comes to angry, disrespectful and intolerant butt wipes.

Let’s see if OS shows up and agrees with General Hayden, shall we, Cranky?

..

[MDlaxfan76]

so they pushed it towards hard sciences for their own personal benefit as a institution (the profession of teaching economics) just like they’d teach in Political Economics. Reality is it’s a very elegant way of describing the world in terms of how humans act/behave and allocate resources but for projecting and forecasting it’s marginally better than local meteorologists. Valuable field but misunderstood largely.

As an anthropology minor, I admire the thought processes generated by economistic thinking - but as you say, when they decided to be "hard sciences" in order to get money they lost the plot. The way of thinking around economics became too entwined with valuing everything in terms of $'s, and assuming away inconvenient truths in the pursuit of putting forward "concrete" actionable conclusions.

and the enhanced value, say of human rights, may well be more desirable than economic efficiency and the prosperity from such

These are things that have been missing from the hard science of economic thinking that permeates our political discourse - the exception being the more philosophical variations being explored in some corners of academia.

Our best interests are not anywhere in his remedial calculations on choices made

Yep Trump only cares about Trump, and perversely he mostly only seems to care about how he is perceived. His insecurities are what define him - and what make him dangerous.

I think the best, and most novel, current thinking in economics is not simply a matter of "$" value, that is, monetary value, though the emphasis on utilizing a shared understanding of a measure of value is fundamental to describing the interrelationship of various inputs and outputs of a system of tradeoffs, rewards, etc.

[HooDat]

I think the best, and most novel, current thinking in economics is not simply a matter of "$" value, that is, monetary value, though the emphasis on utilizing a shared understanding of a measure of value is fundamental to describing the interrelationship of various inputs and outputs of a system of tradeoffs, rewards, etc.

absolutely agree with you on this - I just don't see that thinking making its way into our political discourse or decision making.

Nuanced thinking does not lend itself to bumper stickers, yard signs or soundbites....

[MDlaxfan76]

I think the best, and most novel, current thinking in economics is not simply a matter of "$" value, that is, monetary value, though the emphasis on utilizing a shared understanding of a measure of value is fundamental to describing the interrelationship of various inputs and outputs of a system of tradeoffs, rewards, etc.

absolutely agree with you on this - I just don't see that thinking making its way into our political discourse or decision making.

Nuanced thinking does not lend itself to bumper stickers, yard signs or soundbites....

Quite agree.

Kinda up to us to at least make sure it makes its way into our own decision making...

and if, as voters, we reward with our votes those who are actually trying to think in nuanced terms, that's our role as well.

[Farfromgeneva]

so they pushed it towards hard sciences for their own personal benefit as a institution (the profession of teaching economics) just like they’d teach in Political Economics. Reality is it’s a very elegant way of describing the world in terms of how humans act/behave and allocate resources but for projecting and forecasting it’s marginally better than local meteorologists. Valuable field but misunderstood largely.

As an anthropology minor, I admire the thought processes generated by economistic thinking - but as you say, when they decided to be "hard sciences" in order to get money they lost the plot. The way of thinking around economics became too entwined with valuing everything in terms of $'s, and assuming away inconvenient truths in the pursuit of putting forward "concrete" actionable conclusions.

and the enhanced value, say of human rights, may well be more desirable than economic efficiency and the prosperity from such

These are things that have been missing from the hard science of economic thinking that permeates our political discourse - the exception being the more philosophical variations being explored in some corners of academia.

Our best interests are not anywhere in his remedial calculations on choices made

Yep Trump only cares about Trump, and perversely he mostly only seems to care about how he is perceived. His insecurities are what define him - and what make him dangerous.

I’ll never forget Ezekiel (sp?) Emmanuel, who basically wrote large portions of ACA, yelling at someone, probably Joe Kernan, on CNBC in response to some legitimate questions on the forecasts and projections - “where’s your model? Where’s your model?”.

Reality is it isn’t just banking that lives in a “mark to market” world. We all do.

[MDlaxfan76]

so they pushed it towards hard sciences for their own personal benefit as a institution (the profession of teaching economics) just like they’d teach in Political Economics. Reality is it’s a very elegant way of describing the world in terms of how humans act/behave and allocate resources but for projecting and forecasting it’s marginally better than local meteorologists. Valuable field but misunderstood largely.

As an anthropology minor, I admire the thought processes generated by economistic thinking - but as you say, when they decided to be "hard sciences" in order to get money they lost the plot. The way of thinking around economics became too entwined with valuing everything in terms of $'s, and assuming away inconvenient truths in the pursuit of putting forward "concrete" actionable conclusions.

and the enhanced value, say of human rights, may well be more desirable than economic efficiency and the prosperity from such

These are things that have been missing from the hard science of economic thinking that permeates our political discourse - the exception being the more philosophical variations being explored in some corners of academia.

Our best interests are not anywhere in his remedial calculations on choices made

Yep Trump only cares about Trump, and perversely he mostly only seems to care about how he is perceived. His insecurities are what define him - and what make him dangerous.

I’ll never forget Ezekiel (sp?) Emmanuel, who basically wrote large portions of ACA, yelling at someone, probably Joe Kernan, on CNBC in response to some legitimate questions on the forecasts and projections - “where’s your model? Where’s your model?”.

Reality is it isn’t just banking that lives in a “mark to market” world. We all do.

well, Kernan is not exactly a nuanced thinker...

[Farfromgeneva]

so they pushed it towards hard sciences for their own personal benefit as a institution (the profession of teaching economics) just like they’d teach in Political Economics. Reality is it’s a very elegant way of describing the world in terms of how humans act/behave and allocate resources but for projecting and forecasting it’s marginally better than local meteorologists. Valuable field but misunderstood largely.

As an anthropology minor, I admire the thought processes generated by economistic thinking - but as you say, when they decided to be "hard sciences" in order to get money they lost the plot. The way of thinking around economics became too entwined with valuing everything in terms of $'s, and assuming away inconvenient truths in the pursuit of putting forward "concrete" actionable conclusions.

and the enhanced value, say of human rights, may well be more desirable than economic efficiency and the prosperity from such

These are things that have been missing from the hard science of economic thinking that permeates our political discourse - the exception being the more philosophical variations being explored in some corners of academia.

Our best interests are not anywhere in his remedial calculations on choices made

Yep Trump only cares about Trump, and perversely he mostly only seems to care about how he is perceived. His insecurities are what define him - and what make him dangerous.

I think the best, and most novel, current thinking in economics is not simply a matter of "$" value, that is, monetary value, though the emphasis on utilizing a shared understanding of a measure of value is fundamental to describing the interrelationship of various inputs and outputs of a system of tradeoffs, rewards, etc.

Good little “primer”

https://www.cairn.info/revue-d-economie ... ge-191.htm

I used to want to be semi retired at 50, throw on a tweed jacket w elbow patches and teach part time at soem college combining economics, history, philosophy and practical applications in business and finance based on my experience. Looked into getting a masters in Econ that maybe could offer PhD track but really it isn’t for employment benefit more for my own learning. Got dismissed out of bad. By most of the colleges in the atlanta area due to my lack of interest in pursuing PhD and that track. Sh**ty part of higher ed IMO.

[Farfromgeneva]

so they pushed it towards hard sciences for their own personal benefit as a institution (the profession of teaching economics) just like they’d teach in Political Economics. Reality is it’s a very elegant way of describing the world in terms of how humans act/behave and allocate resources but for projecting and forecasting it’s marginally better than local meteorologists. Valuable field but misunderstood largely.

As an anthropology minor, I admire the thought processes generated by economistic thinking - but as you say, when they decided to be "hard sciences" in order to get money they lost the plot. The way of thinking around economics became too entwined with valuing everything in terms of $'s, and assuming away inconvenient truths in the pursuit of putting forward "concrete" actionable conclusions.

and the enhanced value, say of human rights, may well be more desirable than economic efficiency and the prosperity from such

These are things that have been missing from the hard science of economic thinking that permeates our political discourse - the exception being the more philosophical variations being explored in some corners of academia.

Our best interests are not anywhere in his remedial calculations on choices made

Yep Trump only cares about Trump, and perversely he mostly only seems to care about how he is perceived. His insecurities are what define him - and what make him dangerous.

I’ll never forget Ezekiel (sp?) Emmanuel, who basically wrote large portions of ACA, yelling at someone, probably Joe Kernan, on CNBC in response to some legitimate questions on the forecasts and projections - “where’s your model? Where’s your model?”.

Reality is it isn’t just banking that lives in a “mark to market” world. We all do.

well, Kernan is not exactly a nuanced thinker...

I don’t always agree but he knows some things. In that event I recall he made legit points, ones many sober and thoughtful people had including myself. It was a deeply flawed piece of legislation and overreach but my point was the economist who worked at Hop and didn’t have any sense of the real world cares more about the elegance of the model than he did about the reality of the inputs or even any potential for his own biases and only concluded that prof could come in output of a model refusing to address the human nature and other aspects embedded in the real questions regarding that law. He was so obtuse (or dishonest there) as to argue that only model outputs, regardless of methodology or inputs, were the most important thing.

[MDlaxfan76]

so they pushed it towards hard sciences for their own personal benefit as a institution (the profession of teaching economics) just like they’d teach in Political Economics. Reality is it’s a very elegant way of describing the world in terms of how humans act/behave and allocate resources but for projecting and forecasting it’s marginally better than local meteorologists. Valuable field but misunderstood largely.

As an anthropology minor, I admire the thought processes generated by economistic thinking - but as you say, when they decided to be "hard sciences" in order to get money they lost the plot. The way of thinking around economics became too entwined with valuing everything in terms of $'s, and assuming away inconvenient truths in the pursuit of putting forward "concrete" actionable conclusions.

and the enhanced value, say of human rights, may well be more desirable than economic efficiency and the prosperity from such

These are things that have been missing from the hard science of economic thinking that permeates our political discourse - the exception being the more philosophical variations being explored in some corners of academia.

Our best interests are not anywhere in his remedial calculations on choices made

Yep Trump only cares about Trump, and perversely he mostly only seems to care about how he is perceived. His insecurities are what define him - and what make him dangerous.

I’ll never forget Ezekiel (sp?) Emmanuel, who basically wrote large portions of ACA, yelling at someone, probably Joe Kernan, on CNBC in response to some legitimate questions on the forecasts and projections - “where’s your model? Where’s your model?”.

Reality is it isn’t just banking that lives in a “mark to market” world. We all do.

:
well, Kernan is not exactly a nuanced thinker...

I don’t always agree but he knows some things. In that event I recall he made legit points, ones many sober and thoughtful people had including myself. It was a deeply flawed piece of legislation and overreach but my point was the economist who worked at Hop and didn’t have any sense of the real world cares more about the elegance of the model than he did about the reality of the inputs or even any potential for his own biases and only concluded that prof could come in output of a model refusing to address the human nature and other aspects embedded in the real questions regarding that law. He was so obtuse (or dishonest there) as to argue that only model outputs, regardless of methodology or inputs, were the most important thing.

I can understand why you didn’t get the nod at those academic institutions.

The ACA as eventually passed indeed had flaws, but I’m not sure that modeling is inherently the wrong approach to the question. If there are missing inputs to the model then add them. Just claiming things won’t work isn’t helpful…and btw, the ACA did work pretty darn well for a whole lot of people.

What is frustrating to me was the lack of good faith in trying to improve it…the hyper politicization was not helpful.

[Farfromgeneva]

so they pushed it towards hard sciences for their own personal benefit as a institution (the profession of teaching economics) just like they’d teach in Political Economics. Reality is it’s a very elegant way of describing the world in terms of how humans act/behave and allocate resources but for projecting and forecasting it’s marginally better than local meteorologists. Valuable field but misunderstood largely.

As an anthropology minor, I admire the thought processes generated by economistic thinking - but as you say, when they decided to be "hard sciences" in order to get money they lost the plot. The way of thinking around economics became too entwined with valuing everything in terms of $'s, and assuming away inconvenient truths in the pursuit of putting forward "concrete" actionable conclusions.

and the enhanced value, say of human rights, may well be more desirable than economic efficiency and the prosperity from such

These are things that have been missing from the hard science of economic thinking that permeates our political discourse - the exception being the more philosophical variations being explored in some corners of academia.

Our best interests are not anywhere in his remedial calculations on choices made

Yep Trump only cares about Trump, and perversely he mostly only seems to care about how he is perceived. His insecurities are what define him - and what make him dangerous.

I’ll never forget Ezekiel (sp?) Emmanuel, who basically wrote large portions of ACA, yelling at someone, probably Joe Kernan, on CNBC in response to some legitimate questions on the forecasts and projections - “where’s your model? Where’s your model?”.

Reality is it isn’t just banking that lives in a “mark to market” world. We all do.

:
well, Kernan is not exactly a nuanced thinker...

I don’t always agree but he knows some things. In that event I recall he made legit points, ones many sober and thoughtful people had including myself. It was a deeply flawed piece of legislation and overreach but my point was the economist who worked at Hop and didn’t have any sense of the real world cares more about the elegance of the model than he did about the reality of the inputs or even any potential for his own biases and only concluded that prof could come in output of a model refusing to address the human nature and other aspects embedded in the real questions regarding that law. He was so obtuse (or dishonest there) as to argue that only model outputs, regardless of methodology or inputs, were the most important thing.

I can understand why you didn’t get the nod at those academic institutions.

The ACA as eventually passed indeed had flaws, but I’m not sure that modeling is inherently the wrong approach to the question. If there are missing inputs to the model then add them. Just claiming things won’t work isn’t helpful…and btw, the ACA did work pretty darn well for a whole lot of people.

What is frustrating to me was the lack of good faith in trying to improve it…the hyper politicization was not helpful.

On the second masters degree-I mean they’d take my money it was more about how once I answered their first questions regarding a research track PhD they’d lose interest and Id have to chase them which told me I wouldn’t get good value or service, even doing it slowly 2 courses at night at Ga State cheaply, from any of them and the time value of my spare time around working while having children is quite high these days.

On the ACA/model example, I would tend to agree that not working towards a solution to a problem is bad as the problem can metastasize. However, I believe in a “do no harm” approach as well which doesn’t mean dont fix prior problems that may shift resources from one to another, but rather be aware of iatrogenesis in action. Understand barbelling is better long run than living in the middle (incrementalism) but it comes with big problems and massive losses as well and that’s what ACA was, a big risky bet. The reps didn’t help by refusing to participate but that doesn’t give others a free pass to do whatever they want. Bigger point is that Emmanuel the economist threw out his professionalism as an economist in behaving that way. Like Paul Krugman, betrayed his profession.

*ACA has murdered a entire industry of contract professionals and 1099s at the same time we were pushing a gig economy…

[HooDat]

I used to want to be semi retired at 50, throw on a tweed jacket w elbow patches and teach part time at soem college combining economics, history, philosophy and practical applications in business and finance based on my experience. Looked into getting a masters in Econ that maybe could offer PhD track but really it isn’t for employment benefit more for my own learning. Got dismissed out of bad. By most of the colleges in the atlanta area due to my lack of interest in pursuing PhD and that track. Sh**ty part of higher ed IMO.

I used to have similar daydreams of the bucolic life on a small town campus.

But my course was going to be everything you really need to know while avoiding the bs parts of getting an MBA or undergrad business degree. It was going to target the history/ philosophy and English majors who wanted to know the stuff you actually need to know to either: a) run you own business, or b) go work on Wall St. Figured the whole thing could be taught in 2 to 4 courses total. Never took it even as far as you did because of the insight I got into campus politics while in grad school and sitting on the curriculum committee. No way it would ever be accepted - the b-schools are too big a money maker for Universities and what I would be suggesting was far to disruptive.

[CU88]

Allen Weisselberg is now officially a felon

Steve Bannon is a felon

Roger Stone is a felon

Paul Manafort is a felon

Mike Flynn is a felon

George Papadopoulos is a felon

Rick Gates is a felon

Michael Cohen is a felon

Trump only hires the best people

[old salt]

Who remembers at whose feet Old Soviet USED to worship?

Ex-CIA Director Says Today’s GOP Is Most Dangerous Political Force He’s Ever Seen

..

So you can't make a point without insulting OS in the process. Thank you Dis for proving my point about the hate filled anger and rage displayed towards a decorated and dedicated naval officer who gave more to his country than a whiney pipsqueak like you ever even thought about giving. You should be ashamed of yourself but showing respect towards OS even when you disagree with him ain't in your wheelhouse is it??? No need to worry Dis, you have plenty of company on this forum when it comes to angry, disrespectful and intolerant butt wipes.

Let’s see if OS shows up and agrees with General Hayden, shall we, Cranky?

He told us Hunter's laptop was Russian disinformation.

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/w ... n-pundits/

[a fan]

Who remembers at whose feet Old Soviet USED to worship?

Ex-CIA Director Says Today’s GOP Is Most Dangerous Political Force He’s Ever Seen

..

So you can't make a point without insulting OS in the process. Thank you Dis for proving my point about the hate filled anger and rage displayed towards a decorated and dedicated naval officer who gave more to his country than a whiney pipsqueak like you ever even thought about giving. You should be ashamed of yourself but showing respect towards OS even when you disagree with him ain't in your wheelhouse is it??? No need to worry Dis, you have plenty of company on this forum when it comes to angry, disrespectful and intolerant butt wipes.

Let’s see if OS shows up and agrees with General Hayden, shall we, Cranky?

He told us Hunter's laptop was Russian disinformation.

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/w ... n-pundits/

No. He didn't. You're lying. Intentionally.


And before I let you start playing your stupid game for the 1000th time, whats the point of your citation? Because if I dare assume that you even agree with the main point of the citation, you're going to yell at me for putting words in your mouth.

[old salt]

Who remembers at whose feet Old Soviet USED to worship?

Ex-CIA Director Says Today’s GOP Is Most Dangerous Political Force He’s Ever Seen

..

So you can't make a point without insulting OS in the process. Thank you Dis for proving my point about the hate filled anger and rage displayed towards a decorated and dedicated naval officer who gave more to his country than a whiney pipsqueak like you ever even thought about giving. You should be ashamed of yourself but showing respect towards OS even when you disagree with him ain't in your wheelhouse is it??? No need to worry Dis, you have plenty of company on this forum when it comes to angry, disrespectful and intolerant butt wipes.

Let’s see if OS shows up and agrees with General Hayden, shall we, Cranky?

He told us Hunter's laptop was Russian disinformation.

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/w ... n-pundits/

No. He didn't. You're lying. Intentionally.


And before I let you start playing your stupid game for the 1000th time, whats the point of your citation? Because if I dare assume that you even agree with the main point of the citation, you're going to yell at me for putting words in your mouth.

https://thefederalist.com/2021/10/29/ha ... formation/

[a fan]

Who remembers at whose feet Old Soviet USED to worship?

Ex-CIA Director Says Today’s GOP Is Most Dangerous Political Force He’s Ever Seen

..

So you can't make a point without insulting OS in the process. Thank you Dis for proving my point about the hate filled anger and rage displayed towards a decorated and dedicated naval officer who gave more to his country than a whiney pipsqueak like you ever even thought about giving. You should be ashamed of yourself but showing respect towards OS even when you disagree with him ain't in your wheelhouse is it??? No need to worry Dis, you have plenty of company on this forum when it comes to angry, disrespectful and intolerant butt wipes.

Let’s see if OS shows up and agrees with General Hayden, shall we, Cranky?

He told us Hunter's laptop was Russian disinformation.

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/w ... n-pundits/

No. He didn't. You're lying. Intentionally.


And before I let you start playing your stupid game for the 1000th time, whats the point of your citation? Because if I dare assume that you even agree with the main point of the citation, you're going to yell at me for putting words in your mouth.

https://thefederalist.com/2021/10/29/ha ... formation/

Yeah, that's not the letter. What did the letter say, OS? Gonna pretend you don't know?

And that's also not a quote from Hayden. That's the Hayden Center.

Try again?

You KNOW what the letter said. And the letter, of course, is 1000% accurate. At no point is the letter wrong. But neither you nor the Federalist care.

[old salt]

Who remembers at whose feet Old Soviet USED to worship?

Ex-CIA Director Says Today’s GOP Is Most Dangerous Political Force He’s Ever Seen

..

So you can't make a point without insulting OS in the process. Thank you Dis for proving my point about the hate filled anger and rage displayed towards a decorated and dedicated naval officer who gave more to his country than a whiney pipsqueak like you ever even thought about giving. You should be ashamed of yourself but showing respect towards OS even when you disagree with him ain't in your wheelhouse is it??? No need to worry Dis, you have plenty of company on this forum when it comes to angry, disrespectful and intolerant butt wipes.

Let’s see if OS shows up and agrees with General Hayden, shall we, Cranky?

He told us Hunter's laptop was Russian disinformation.

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/w ... n-pundits/

No. He didn't. You're lying. Intentionally.


And before I let you start playing your stupid game for the 1000th time, whats the point of your citation? Because if I dare assume that you even agree with the main point of the citation, you're going to yell at me for putting words in your mouth.

https://thefederalist.com/2021/10/29/ha ... formation/

Yeah, that's not the letter. What did the letter say, OS? Gonna pretend you don't know?

And that's also not a quote from Hayden. That's the Hayden Center.

Try again?

You KNOW what the letter said. And the letter, of course, is 1000% accurate. At no point is the letter wrong. But neither you nor the Federalist care.

Right. It was a nonpartisan observation, issued to put the public's mind at ease, just before an election. No intent to influence voters.