Osodecentx said:

---

quash said:

---

Bearitto said:

---

Opposition to tariffs at all costs is like being a pacifist who opposes violence for any reason. Murdering innocent people is wrong, but killing in war, self defense or the defense of others is completely justified and good. Tariffs to protect cronies is wrong. Tariffs to protect IP or essential industries can be useful; particularly if short term.

---

Define "short term".

To me we are past short term: we are paying the import tax (and thereby reducing our purchasing power), our businesses have lost market share, GDP will take a small hit, and we are paying billions for bailout of some of those businesses. And we have a president who still thinks tariffs are a revenue source streaming into the country (Tweet from 2/12/20: "PAID FOR OUT OF THE MASSIVE TARIFF MONEY COMING INTO THE USA!").

If it were truly short term businesses could plan around tariffs. Going on 2+ years, with adjustments and retaliatory tariffs, takes the certainty out of impacted markets. The market likes certainty.

As to IP issues, remember that companies that trade with China are fully aware of what they are getting into. Most of them have made a business decision to accept the joint venture partner (with access to IP) or the outright transfer, just to get access to the Chinese market. If it works they stay, if it doesn't they leave.

I just don't think the state needs to get involved in market decisions. The Chinese state will, but capitalists have always dealt with state interference and still prized their freedom from such control by their own state.

---

I oppose tariffs, whether in US or our trading partners. However, if a trading partner puts ups barrier against out exports I'm okay levying a tariff on their products.

---

After negotiation, after an international adjudication, sure.

quash said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

quash said:

---

Bearitto said:

---

Opposition to tariffs at all costs is like being a pacifist who opposes violence for any reason. Murdering innocent people is wrong, but killing in war, self defense or the defense of others is completely justified and good. Tariffs to protect cronies is wrong. Tariffs to protect IP or essential industries can be useful; particularly if short term.

---

Define "short term".

To me we are past short term: we are paying the import tax (and thereby reducing our purchasing power), our businesses have lost market share, GDP will take a small hit, and we are paying billions for bailout of some of those businesses. And we have a president who still thinks tariffs are a revenue source streaming into the country (Tweet from 2/12/20: "PAID FOR OUT OF THE MASSIVE TARIFF MONEY COMING INTO THE USA!").

If it were truly short term businesses could plan around tariffs. Going on 2+ years, with adjustments and retaliatory tariffs, takes the certainty out of impacted markets. The market likes certainty.

As to IP issues, remember that companies that trade with China are fully aware of what they are getting into. Most of them have made a business decision to accept the joint venture partner (with access to IP) or the outright transfer, just to get access to the Chinese market. If it works they stay, if it doesn't they leave.

I just don't think the state needs to get involved in market decisions. The Chinese state will, but capitalists have always dealt with state interference and still prized their freedom from such control by their own state.

---

I oppose tariffs, whether in US or our trading partners. However, if a trading partner puts ups barrier against out exports I'm okay levying a tariff on their products.

---

After negotiation, after an international adjudication, sure.

---

"International adjudication" = 'letting someone else set the rules'

Hell no.

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

quash said:

---

Bearitto said:

---

Opposition to tariffs at all costs is like being a pacifist who opposes violence for any reason. Murdering innocent people is wrong, but killing in war, self defense or the defense of others is completely justified and good. Tariffs to protect cronies is wrong. Tariffs to protect IP or essential industries can be useful; particularly if short term.

---

Define "short term".

To me we are past short term: we are paying the import tax (and thereby reducing our purchasing power), our businesses have lost market share, GDP will take a small hit, and we are paying billions for bailout of some of those businesses. And we have a president who still thinks tariffs are a revenue source streaming into the country (Tweet from 2/12/20: "PAID FOR OUT OF THE MASSIVE TARIFF MONEY COMING INTO THE USA!").

If it were truly short term businesses could plan around tariffs. Going on 2+ years, with adjustments and retaliatory tariffs, takes the certainty out of impacted markets. The market likes certainty.

As to IP issues, remember that companies that trade with China are fully aware of what they are getting into. Most of them have made a business decision to accept the joint venture partner (with access to IP) or the outright transfer, just to get access to the Chinese market. If it works they stay, if it doesn't they leave.

I just don't think the state needs to get involved in market decisions. The Chinese state will, but capitalists have always dealt with state interference and still prized their freedom from such control by their own state.

---

I oppose tariffs, whether in US or our trading partners. However, if a trading partner puts ups barrier against out exports I'm okay levying a tariff on their products.

---

After negotiation, after an international adjudication, sure.

---

"International adjudication" = 'letting someone else set the rules'

Hell no.

---

We've had success in them. When we don't (as I said) then tariffs are still in the toolbox.

If you can get past sovereignty issues (and sometimes you can't) the WTO and the various treaty-created fora offer, well, rules. Rules help because they represent areas of agreement flushed out before a conflict arises, and they offer some measure of predictability in trade dealings, and some measure of accountability. They can boost confidence in trade and prevent trade wars.

Or, as Bastiat says, to prevent actual wars: "A French ironmaster says: "We must protect ourselves from the invasion of English iron!" An English landlord cries: "We must repel the invasion of French wheat!" And they urge the erection of barriers between the two nations. Barriers result in isolation; isolation gives rise to hatred; hatred, to war; war, to invasion. "What difference does it make?" say the two sophists. "Is it not better to risk the possibility of invasion than to accept the certainty of invasion?" And the people believe them, and the barriers remain standing.

And yet, what analogy is there between an exchange and an invasion? What possible similarity can there be between a warship that comes to vomit missiles, fire, and devastation on our cities, and a merchant vessel that comes to offer us a voluntary exchange of goods for goods?"

quash said:

---

We've had success in them. When we don't (as I said) then tariffs are still in the toolbox.

---

We agree on this

Pea Weevil said:

---

Here is the place for up to date Coronavirus data: https://gisanddata.maps.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/bda7594740fd40299423467b48e9ecf6

Pea Weevil

---

Great site

US cases will spike once testing kits are more widely available.

45 fumbled this one when he cut funding. So short sighted

Waco1947 said:

---

45 fumbled this one when he cut funding. So short sighted

---

Who got their funding cut?

Osodecentx said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

45 fumbled this one when he cut funding. So short sighted

---

Who got their funding cut?

---

Forget it, he's spewing.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

45 fumbled this one when he cut funding. So short sighted

---

Who got their funding cut?

---

Forget it, he's spewing.

---

Speaking of spewing, those dozens of posts you littered us with nonstop during the first six pages of this thread sure have aged poorly.

BaylorBJM said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

45 fumbled this one when he cut funding. So short sighted

---

Who got their funding cut?

---

Forget it, he's spewing.

---

Speaking of spewing, those dozens of posts you littered us with nonstop during the first six pages of this thread sure have aged poorly.

---

You are wrong yet again, old Bluto.

It's like a gift you have, that ability to find the rake wherever you walk ...

Waco1947 said:

---

45 fumbled this one when he cut funding. So short sighted

---

They didn't have their funding cut .

Waco1947 said:

---

45 fumbled this one when he cut funding. So short sighted

---

Which funding was cut and by how much, precisely?

I look forward to reading your answer.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

45 fumbled this one when he cut funding. So short sighted

---

Who got their funding cut?

---

Forget it, he's spewing.

---

i want to see what he says

Florda_mike said:

---

quash said:

---

Florda_mike said:

---

I'd assume you know cnn has hemorrhaged viewership after Mueller Report proved Trump innocence?

Turn off cnn in airports and it would vanish in a year

It loses 10s of millions a year and is propped to stay on

If cable providers weren't forced to keep this financial loser by virtual Socialism in TV it wouldn't be here just like msLSD

You don't get any of that so I'll pass on answering anything else from your financially illiterate Dumas

---

From a business standpoint you made a claim that you are running from. Show me the govt reg that forces cable providers to air CNN.

---

You're a joke

You know what I say is how it works and how cnn stays alive

Stop lying for just once

And stop wasting my valuable time!

---

CNN contracts with airports and cable companies to carry its network. The government doesn't force them to air CNN.

TexasScientist said:

---

Florda_mike said:

---

quash said:

---

Florda_mike said:

---

I'd assume you know cnn has hemorrhaged viewership after Mueller Report proved Trump innocence?

Turn off cnn in airports and it would vanish in a year

It loses 10s of millions a year and is propped to stay on

If cable providers weren't forced to keep this financial loser by virtual Socialism in TV it wouldn't be here just like msLSD

You don't get any of that so I'll pass on answering anything else from your financially illiterate Dumas

---

From a business standpoint you made a claim that you are running from. Show me the govt reg that forces cable providers to air CNN.

---

You're a joke

You know what I say is how it works and how cnn stays alive

Stop lying for just once

And stop wasting my valuable time!

---

CNN contracts with airports and cable companies to carry its network. The government doesn't force them to air CNN.

---

Mike has never let facts stand in the way of a good, nonsensical conspiracy. It's his shtick around these parts.

The guy lives and breathes conspiracies 24/7.

TexasScientist said:

---

Florda_mike said:

---

quash said:

---

Florda_mike said:

---

I'd assume you know cnn has hemorrhaged viewership after Mueller Report proved Trump innocence?

Turn off cnn in airports and it would vanish in a year

It loses 10s of millions a year and is propped to stay on

If cable providers weren't forced to keep this financial loser by virtual Socialism in TV it wouldn't be here just like msLSD

You don't get any of that so I'll pass on answering anything else from your financially illiterate Dumas

---

From a business standpoint you made a claim that you are running from. Show me the govt reg that forces cable providers to air CNN.

---

You're a joke

You know what I say is how it works and how cnn stays alive

Stop lying for just once

And stop wasting my valuable time!

---

CNN contracts with airports and cable companies to carry its network. The government doesn't force them to air CNN.

---

You know nothing and you're spouting your typical bs

Same with BJM blowing his bs

Prove to us that CNN contracts with every airport to carry its network as you say they do. I'll wait for that answer

As I LMAO at both of you

Florda_mike said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Florda_mike said:

---

quash said:

---

Florda_mike said:

---

I'd assume you know cnn has hemorrhaged viewership after Mueller Report proved Trump innocence?

Turn off cnn in airports and it would vanish in a year

It loses 10s of millions a year and is propped to stay on

If cable providers weren't forced to keep this financial loser by virtual Socialism in TV it wouldn't be here just like msLSD

You don't get any of that so I'll pass on answering anything else from your financially illiterate Dumas

---

From a business standpoint you made a claim that you are running from. Show me the govt reg that forces cable providers to air CNN.

---

You're a joke

You know what I say is how it works and how cnn stays alive

Stop lying for just once

And stop wasting my valuable time!

---

CNN contracts with airports and cable companies to carry its network. The government doesn't force them to air CNN.

---

You know nothing and you're spouting your typical bs

Same with BJM blowing his bs

Prove to us that CNN contracts with every airport to carry its network as you say they do. I'll wait for that answer

As I LMAO at both of you

---

You can LOL all you want but, as usual, you're the one most of us laugh at. The ones who aren't laughing, are simply saddened by your seemingly never ending lack of intelligence. It really is quite amazing.

In less than ten seconds I was able to pull over 40 articles discussing CNN's contract with over five dozen airports throughout the US.

I won't waste time linking all sixty because, as you've constantly shown over your 20,000 posts (seriously, who has that much time -try the really world sometime,) facts are nothing more than an inconvenience for you. But here you go anyway.

https://www.rd.com/advice/travel/why-do-airports-play-cnn/

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.foxnews.com/entertainment/growing-questions-about-cnns-airport-monopoly-as-network-veers-left.amp

Looks like those are annual payments of like only $150,000 to Miami International that other networks are trying to work towards too

Reach TV and others are trying same

You didn't read what you posted

Florda_mike said:

---

Looks like those are annual payments of like only $150,000 to Miami International that other networks are trying to work towards too

Reach TV and others are trying same

You didn't read what you posted

---

What in the world? Are you an actual, real life breathing human being or are you a program of some sort?? That's what a contract is, money in exchange for something else. It says so right in the very link.

Directly from the article:
"Long-term contracts typically give CNN the ability to curate content seen by travelers whether they like it or not. The eight-year contract that was signed in 2016 promises Miami International Airport "a maximum annual guarantee of $150,000" that may be adjusted annually to ensure the deal is on par with similar airports."

It then goes on to say dozens of airports across the country have similar contracts with CNN.

Are you incapable of EVER admitting you're wrong??

I'm sorry but you don't understand how that "contract" business works

Mostly union labor airports are not contracted fairly. As it said CNN only pays an airport the size of Miami International $150,000 annually? Seriously? Do you really think FOX would turn down that opportunity if it was available? These are not openly bid and you know but your left lean won't allow you to do anything but defend CNN

How many private businesses in Dallas or Fort Worth would pay DFW $150,000 to have company advertising where all the TVs in DFW currently exist? Answer that one genius

Your a tool and puppet of left but try to camouflage

Adios ******bag

Florda_mike said:

---

I'm sorry but you don't understand how that "contract" business works

Mostly union labor airports are not contracted fairly. As it said CNN only pays an airport the size of Miami International $150,000 annually? Seriously? Do you really think FOX would turn down that opportunity if it was available? These are not openly bid and you know but your left lean won't allow you to do anything but defend CNN

Your a tool and puppet of left but try to camouflage

Adios ******bag

---

Go to sleep. You are making the wrong arguments and you are digging in where you lost.

You are attempting to claim something is traditionally socialist when it's a mix of crony capitalism and ideologs willing to use income from popular shows as a loss leader to push their corrupt political ideas. Are those people socialists? Sure. But like the Chinese communists have figured out, a corrupted crony capitalism works better than socialism does.

Argue with facts next time.

Florda_mike said:

---

I'm sorry but you don't understand how that "contract" business works

Mostly union labor airports are not contracted fairly. As it said CNN only pays an airport the size of Miami International $150,000 annually? Seriously? Do you really think FOX would turn down that opportunity if it was available? These are not openly bid and you know but your left lean won't allow you to do anything but defend CNN

How many private businesses in Dallas or Fort Worth would pay DFW $150,000 to have company advertising where all the TVs in DFW currently exist? Answer that one genius

Your a tool and puppet of left but try to camouflage

Adios ******bag

---

Lulz.

Osodecentx said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

45 fumbled this one when he cut funding. So short sighted

---

Who got their funding cut?

---

No one but the cuts were in 45's budget and he let go a bunch of folk

Waco1947 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

45 fumbled this one when he cut funding. So short sighted

---

Who got their funding cut?

---

No one but the cuts were in 45's budget and he let go a bunch of folk

---

You clearly said 45 cut funding. Now you say no one had funding cut. Were you lying then or are you lying now?

Ultra Music Festival in Miami cancelled due to the Corona virus fears

Jack Bauer said:

---

Ultra Music Festival in Miami cancelled due to the Corona virus fears

---

To be fair, it's an electronic music festival. It kind of already was a virus.

Coronavirus deaths in China as of today (3/6/2020) - 3,044

Number of traffic deaths each year on Texas highways - 3,200+ (about 9 people per day)

Number of fatalities in a single day from Nashville tornado - 24 dead and 38 still missing

Number of coronavirus deaths in the U.S. as of 3/6/2020 - 14


ORANGE MAN BAD!!!

for what it's worth, here is the latest update from my specialty group:

https://mailchi.mp/gi/acgrecommendations-re-covid-19-for-gastroenterologists?e=8eeca0d870

Then clearly let me apologize. I apologize

Waco1947 said:

---

Then clearly let me apologize. I apologize

---

Ok. But which time were you lying? I just need to clear this up.