NC_Tigah
| Favorite team: | LSU  |
| Location: | Make Orwell Fiction Again |
| Biography: | Warmest climes but nurse the cruellest fangs: the tiger of Bengal crouches in spiced groves of ceaseless verdure. |
| Interests: | Cornucopian ends attained. |
| Occupation: | Physician |
| Number of Posts: | 139655 |
| Registered on: | 9/28/2003 |
| Online Status: | Not Online |
Recent Posts
Message
quote:Dude! You cannot be serious?
Dumbass, we created the problem for them. We along with the Israelis started this
We, "the Great Satan, created the problem for them?
We, "the Great Satan," along with the Israelis started this?
What theocratic connotations does "the Great Satan' entail in your opinion?
0
re: There is no way this $300B surrender package gets through congress
Posted by NC_Tigah on 6/15/26 at 5:29 pm to FluffyBunnyFeet
quote:Nah.
See how god damn dumb and stupid you are?
---
Well now, this was just uncalled for.
Always invite projection. It is inevitably illuminating. :cheers:
quote:What are the particulars of the "deal."
If Obama or Biden orchestrated this ‘deal’
quote:Thank Goodness!
He is not.
Wheeew! :lol:
quote:Ouch! Ouch!
There is no way you are this stupid. That 300 billion is absolutely going to 100% fund their nuclear aspirations.
---
You know the stipulations required to get the money? Please list them.
That's going to leave a mark.
quote:Please, Dear God, don't tell me you are an attorney, as Bonds insinuates. Goodness. :casty:
Do you know what the Treaty Clause in the US Constitution says?
quote:Powerman, my head is never "in the sand." Ever. I do not operate that way.
Sticking your head in the sand
That does not mean I'm right or wrong. But it means I'm respondent to all arguments.
For example, there is no excuse for this BS.
None!
\ Yet it was/is promoted as """science"""
quote:They were NEVER going to show up ... EVER.
They cut them because the dramatic, civilization-ending predictions they spent years platforming never actually showed up on schedule.
Because the anthropogenic climate premise is, and always was, complete redistributional leftist political bullshite!
quote:It hasn't you effing imbecile!
the ballroom will not cost the taxpayers anything
quote:Not if you believe, as you apparently do, that "Gulf States" relates to TX, LA, MS, AL, and FL.
Do you honestly believe there will be $0 in taxpayer funds in that $300B?
Of course, as has been explained many many many times, Gulf States in this instance refers to Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE.
quote:To paraphrase Forrest Gump, "sounded" is as "sounded" does.
Quit deflecting from the fact that you sounded like a dummy about the 300 billion.
Both circle back around to "dummy."
quote:Vance has said no less than a half dozen times IT DOES NOT ENTAIL ANY TAXPAYER MONEY !
If it is going to require an allocation of taxpayer money it 100% has to go through Congress - they hold the purse via the constitution
once more for the slow people ...
IT DOES NOT ENTAIL ANY TAXPAYER MONEY !
once more for the realllly sloooow ...
IT DOES NOT ENTAIL ANY TAXPAYER MONEY !
quote:One of these ...
Please educate me on what I am missing?
quote:Wow! Just wow. :casty::casty:
There is no way this $300B surrender package gets through congress
re: Well, here it is: Deal with Iran completed
Posted by NC_Tigah on 6/15/26 at 3:57 pm to Byron Bojangles III
quote:
Trump also said no new wars so we'll see who ends up paying
quote:You really don't know WTF you are talking about. For example, if right now US businesses said, "Hey we're ready to put $50B into Cuba," would Cuba do well to accept that? US businesses, US influence, doing what Cuban leadership couldn't? The politics of it would be unsustainable.
Yep
It doesn't matter where it comes from. It's what they are going to use it on
Unless Trump finds his balls and sidelines Vance, Iran is going to come out of this much stronger
Gulf States bailing Iran out would/will carry similar connotations.
quote:I guess we'll have to see in implementation.
Well, that is how it is, right?
I think this is the wording in the law, which does not mention specific platforms by name:
An “age-restricted social media platform” is defined as an electronic service that:
• has the sole, or a significant purpose of the service to enable online social interactions between two or more end-users;
• allows end-users to link or interact with other end-users; and
• allows end-users to post the material on the service.
re: UK Bans Social Media for Those Under 16
Posted by NC_Tigah on 6/15/26 at 7:08 am to Aubie Spr96
quote:The problem I'd have with it would be if it included an asymmetric ban where sites like x.com are included but bluesky is not. That appears not to be the case. The legislation doesn't seem to include specific names, just categorization.
UK Bans Social Media for Those Under 16
quote:
Crude oil futures below $75 bbl….
Popular
17
