How about you spend 10 minutes on Google and find out for yourself?
I'm not trying to be snarky (well, not too snarky), but I usually provide lots of back-up, most of which I find in 10 minutes of search time. It's not too much to ask that others do the same now and then.
Please note that I say "conservative," not Republican. There are differences.
The last Pew Research poll that I read IIRC, had both liberal democrats, conservative/moderate democrats, liberal/moderate republicans, and conservative republicans, and again, IIRC, every group (except for conservative republicans) was below 50% when asked if free trade was "good" for the overall economy. I think conservative republicans were still below 60%.
I found the poll actually. If you'd like to see it, google it for yourself.
As shown previously, you're not by any means fit to judge, kid. You'll receive due consideration when you prove capable of formulating an actual argument rather than making absurd claims with respect to your mentality, and linking to site that has this to say on the subject of context (after a stream of obvious nonsense)...
Please Shad oh please...son...tell me yer not that stupid?!
Not once did I refer to even a word of the text, or refer to its meaning, or intention, or even to the story at all, of that obviously spoof/satirical 'blog' post. Although I now realize I was mistaken in believing I didn't need to point out that I wasn't referring to the 'funny story' since I hadn't...uh...referred...uh...to the 'funny story'. I mean, given the underlying assumption that I was discussing this with at least self professed 'intelligent people' who, maybe not always, but most often 'get it'. Apparently my original characterization of you was more right on than I thought.
So anyway, son, please re-read what I've written and maybe you'll 'realize' (if you drop the pink tunnel vision) my reference was solely, singularly, and simply, a nudge, a hint, a hope for you or anyone to watch THAT particular EMBEDDED extended version of the video of good ole Hank. And you accused me of having 'reading comprehension' problems. ******* amazing! Just so it's clear to everyone else, here's my first post replying to Shad:
HarryHenderson said:
Apparently you didn't read the entire thread and/or pay enough attention to any of the 'details' as this link, from this post shows a bit longer version of the exchange AND the 'context', including what he says after that remark. And for the record, Hank Johnson is in 'indeed' an IDIOT.
So sorry Shadowdweller, the 'joke' is on you. Keep it up though, practice makes perfect.
Being confident you still won't get the (at one time very simple) point of my specific reference, I'll quote ole Hank directly as to the 'RELEVANT' part:
<immediately right after the Admiral finishes a long drawn out explanation to him on how the additional 'warm bodies' really won't change the island's 'buoyancy' given there's already 175,00+ people on it now and it still hasn't gone over - as opposed to the Admiral pointing out islands don't actually tip over>
"...and, uh, and also things like the, uh, environment, uh..."
There. Those but few words are him changing the subject. From the island's seaworthiness to the environment. That's all. Please keep up.
If anyone (besides Shad) actually needs more proof of Rep. D-Georgia Hank Johnson's lunacy...
I think this pretty well defines the individual to whom you are responding.
It's not just that he's to the extreme left part of the political spectrum, so must as that his focus is not nearly so much on building up his own position as it is in tearing down those with whom he disagrees.
He has no good argument as to why you should support his extreme left-wing position; only crazy claims about why you should not support right-wing “teatrash”. Acknowledging that this “teatrash” contains, for the most part, people who are as intelligent, honest, and educated as those on his end of the political spectrum would undermine his arguments, and leave him with nothing to say.
You still can't escape the possibility that Johnson was using somewhat poetic imagery for an eccosystem that was nearly over-loaded already and the possibility that the Navy was about to add that last unsupportable weight to the system.
There really isn't a lot of room on the island for a military installation any more. That was clearly the point of what he was saying.
His cognitive ability is still clearly far better than that of the Shrub or Mitch McConnell or Michelle Bachmann..
<immediately right after the Admiral finishes a long drawn out explanation to him on how the additional 'warm bodies' really won't change the island's 'buoyancy' given there's already 175,00+ people on it now and it still hasn't gone over - as opposed to the Admiral pointing out islands don't actually tip over>
"...and, uh, and also things like the, uh, environment, uh..."
You mean this part kid? This part that's been in nearly every video of the exchange out there:
ADM. WILLARD: We don't anticipate that. The Guam population, I think, currently about 175,000 and again with 8,000 Marines and their families, it's an addition of about 25,000 more into the population.
REP. JOHNSON: And also things like the environment, the sensitive areas of the environment, coral reefs and those kinds of things.
And I know that lots of people don't like to think about that, but we didn't think about global warming either and now we do have to think about it.
And so I'm concerned from an environmental standpoint whether or not Guam is the best place to do this relocation. But it's actually the only place. Is that correct?
ADM. WILLARD: This is the best place. This is the farthest west U.S. territory that we own and this is part of our nation in readdressing the forward presence and posture importance to Pacific Command. Guam is vital to this decision.
The Department of the Navy is reviewing the impacts associated with the Marines’ relocation to Guam and has initiated an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). A study indicated a peak impact would be reached in 2014, which includes almost 80,000 additional personnel beyond the current Guam population of 180,000. In assessing the ability of Guam to support this peak expansion, the Environmental Protection Agency was very critical and rated the DEIS as Environmentally Unsatisfactory because: (1) the project will result in unsatisfactory impacts to Guam's existing substandard drinking water and wastewater infrastructure, which may result in significant adverse public health impacts; and 2) the project will result in unacceptable impacts to 71 acres of high quality coral reef ecosystem in Apra Harbor.
But by all means, keep digging yourself deeper. ETA: Since I have little doubt you will completely fail to grasp the significance of the above, Johnson is not changing the subject at all. The EPA gave the proposed base expansion a miserable evaluation, referencing all of the concerns he brought up (drinking water, wastewater, solid waste, electricity, and, yes, coral reefs).
The last Pew Research poll that I read IIRC, had both liberal democrats, conservative/moderate democrats, liberal/moderate republicans, and conservative republicans, and again, IIRC, every group (except for conservative republicans) was below 50% when asked if free trade was "good" for the overall economy. I think conservative republicans were still below 60%.
I found the poll actually. If you'd like to see it, google it for yourself.
Well, then specifically on the subject of protectionism:
I think it's strange that there is such little support for free trade, and thus so much support for economic protectionism across party and ideological lines.
I think it's strange that there is such little support for free trade, and thus so much support for economic protectionism across party and ideological lines.
Well, then specifically on the subject of protectionism:
I think it's strange that there is such little support for free trade, and thus so much support for economic protectionism across party and ideological lines.
You do know that this is what you said earlier right?
Do you see how it's a bit odd that you said "free market economy," instead of specifically "free trade," when we were talking about economic protectionism?
Anyway, I'll drop it, just wanted to show you why I was a bit confused, and still am.
You do know that this is what you said earlier right?
Do you see how it's a bit odd that you said "free market economy," instead of specifically "free trade," when we were talking about economic protectionism?
Anyway, I'll drop it, just wanted to show you why I was a bit confused, and still am.
I can see that I may have not worded it as well as I could have - sorry about that. If I said, "domestic protectionism," would that have been clearer?
I'd be against protectionism in foreign trading, if it were bilateral with each trading partner, and often it isn't. Also, there's sometimes a quality issue with incoming goods - for instance, I no longer buy any consumables from China due to the lack of quality control.
I can see that I may have not worded it as well as I could have - sorry about that. If I said, "domestic protectionism," would that have been clearer?
I'd be against protectionism in foreign trading, if it were bilateral with each trading partner, and often it isn't. Also, there's sometimes a quality issue with incoming goods - for instance, I no longer buy any consumables from China due to the lack of quality control.
We are totally highjacking this thread, but I do find your boycott of Chinese goods interesting.
I've heard a lot of people say the same thing. It's interesting, because I assume that Chinese companies must be aware of the beginnings of a backlash, and will be forced to do something about it.
I wonder if any Chinese companies have overhauled quality controls and/or PR to win American (and many other developed countries') consumers back? They need us, after all.
We are totally highjacking this thread, but I do find your boycott of Chinese goods interesting.
I've heard a lot of people say the same thing. It's interesting, because I assume that Chinese companies must be aware of the beginnings of a backlash, and will be forced to do something about it.
I wonder if any Chinese companies have overhauled quality controls and/or PR to win American (and many other developed countries') consumers back? They need us, after all.
Lefty, with all the things in the GOP that scare you, and that you call scary, do you have a good stock of Depenz on hand? You ain't gettin' any younger, ya know ...
A good day at the rifle range helps relieve the stress, and my aim is getting better since I got my cataracts fixe. And this artifical shoulder joint works acceptably when I try to assume a good prone firing position.
I have yet to see a Democrat who has any chance of ever being elected to something go as far over the edge as Robinson, Angle, Brewer or Paul or Caribou Barbie.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Please Shad oh please...son...tell me yer not that stupid?! 
