United States vs. ?

Meanwhile it appears Milwaukee has addressed their staffing issue and 911 response time problems because at 2AM there's a minimum of four officers available to subdue an unarmed person for parking across a pair of handicap spots.
 
nosuchreality said:
Meanwhile it appears Milwaukee has addressed their staffing issue and 911 response time problems because at 2AM there's a minimum of four officers available to subdue an unarmed person for parking across a pair of handicap spots.

Cop tased an NBA player that plays for the Milwaukee Bucks. The message is: don?t park in the handicap spot or else you will get tased. ;)
https://youtu.be/voA2bxpYwOY
 
With the NFL being an entertainment conglomerate, not a sports league, those who say Kaepernick could have a case for being boycotted due to race are 100% wrong. The owners would love to have a solid QB if they were red, white, or blue for all that matters. Kaepernick isn't being hired, and the players are now required to stand for one simple reason - it's box office poison if they don't stand.

Kaepernick isn't being "Kaepernick'ed", he's being "Heigl'ed"

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/films/2016/12/14/hollywoods-hated-time-give-katherine-heigl-second-chance/

Since kneeling during the anthem presents to the average TV viewer a terribly mixed message, I'm all for protests off the field as a way of focusing their grievances and ensuring a greater impact.
 
Soylent Green Is People said:
With the NFL being an entertainment conglomerate, not a sports league, those who say Kaepernick could have a case for being boycotted due to race are 100% wrong. The owners would love to have a solid QB if they were red, white, or blue for all that matters. Kaepernick isn't being hired, and the players are now required to stand for one simple reason - it's box office poison if they don't stand.

Kaepernick isn't being "Kaepernick'ed", he's being "Heigl'ed"

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/films/2016/12/14/hollywoods-hated-time-give-katherine-heigl-second-chance/

Since kneeling during the anthem presents to the average TV viewer a terribly mixed message, I'm all for protests off the field as a way of focusing their grievances and ensuring a greater impact.

Seems like he has had a very big impact.
 
Irvinecommuter said:
Soylent Green Is People said:
With the NFL being an entertainment conglomerate, not a sports league, those who say Kaepernick could have a case for being boycotted due to race are 100% wrong. The owners would love to have a solid QB if they were red, white, or blue for all that matters. Kaepernick isn't being hired, and the players are now required to stand for one simple reason - it's box office poison if they don't stand.

Kaepernick isn't being "Kaepernick'ed", he's being "Heigl'ed"

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/films/2016/12/14/hollywoods-hated-time-give-katherine-heigl-second-chance/

Since kneeling during the anthem presents to the average TV viewer a terribly mixed message, I'm all for protests off the field as a way of focusing their grievances and ensuring a greater impact.

Seems like he has had a very big impact.

On everything except police brutality.  This was all a stunt to raise his status from the beginning, and it backfired dramatically.
 
?NBC article:North Korea nuclear summit ends abruptly with no deal

"We had some options. At this time we decided not to do any of the options. We?ll see where that goes," Trump said after negotiations collapsed.?

Source:https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna977466

My comment: Another No Deal. However I?m not surprised.
 
Again, you don't get the negotiation style.  Kennedy played poker with Krushchev, Reagan played poker with Gorbachev...this is no different.  Call, raise, call
 
Yahh..Reagan was a nincompoop to walk away at Rekjavik....what a dunce....

Reagan-Gorbachev Summit Talks Collapse as Deadlock on SDI Wipes Out Other Gains
By Lou Cannon
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, October 13, 1986; Page A01

REYKJAVIK, ICELAND, OCT. 12 -- The summit meeting between President Reagan and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev collapsed tonight after the two leaders had tentatively agreed to sweeping reductions in nuclear arsenals but deadlocked on the crucial issue of restricting the U.S. space-based missile defense program widely known as "Star Wars."

Secretary of State George P. Shultz, reporting in a strained voice on a meeting that began with bright promise and ended gloomily after more than seven hours of negotiation today, said he was "deeply disappointed" and no longer saw "any prospect" for a summit meeting in Washington between the two leaders in the coming months.

Gorbachev, in a news conference tonight, painted a bleak picture of U.S.-Soviet relations leading up to this weekend's summit and said that the talks had "ruptured" over the fundamental differences between the superpowers on the Strategic Defense Initiative and the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty. He said Reagan's insistence on deploying SDI had "frustrated and scuttled" the opportunity for an agreement.

The United States, Gorbachev complained, had come to Reykjavik "empty-handed," with the same "mothballed" proposals that the Soviets opposed in Geneva. But after the talks here, he said, he had told Reagan that "we were missing a historic chance. Never had our positions been so close together."

Reagan, in remarks to U.S. service personnel at the airport before leaving Iceland, said, however, that "though we put on the table the most far-reaching arms control proposal in history, the general secretary (Gorbachev) rejected it."

"We moved toward agreement on drastically reduced numbers of intermediate-range missiles in both Europe and Asia," Reagan said. "We approached agreement on sharply reduced strategic arsenals for both our countries. We made progress in the area of nuclear testing, but there was remaining at the end of our talks one area of disagreement" -- the American SDI program.

(Reagan returned to Andrews Air Force Base late Sunday night, where he was met by Nancy Reagan. He had no comment on the talks, saying only "tune in tomorrow night," a reference to his televised report to the nation scheduled for 8 p.m. Monday.)

Shultz told reporters that the two leaders, aided by groups of experts, had reached a contingent agreement to eliminate all nuclear ballistic missiles within 10 years and also had made progress on human rights issues.

But Shultz said that the two days of talks here had ended without agreement because the Soviets insisted on a change in the 1972 ABM treaty that would have limited Reagan's SDI antimissile program to laboratory research.

...The collapse of the summit talks on the SDI issue left both leaders in an uncertain political position.

Reagan had persuaded a reluctant Congress to remove restrictions on his arms programs from a pending budget bill largely on the hope that he could make progress on arms accords here and at a prospective future summit meeting in the United States. Gorbachev has unilaterally observed a 14-month nuclear testing moratorium despite skepticism in Soviet military circles, hoping he could persuade the United States to join the moratorium.

Instead of returning with an agreement to cut nuclear arsenals and reduce testing, as seemed possible earlier today, both leaders are returning home empty-handed.

Reagan's explanation for the failure of the Iceland summit in his departure speech tonight appeared to differ in one important particular from the account given by Shultz and White House officials who briefed reporters on the meeting on condition they not be identified.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/summit/archive/oct86.htm
 
morekaos said:
Again, you don't get the negotiation style.  Kennedy played poker with Krushchev, Reagan played poker with Gorbachev...this is no different.  Call, raise, call

LOL...keep dreaming.  How are those negotiations with China going?
 
So far I think swimmingly....

Trump bucked orthodoxy on China, and it just might work


First, unlike his predecessors, the current U.S. president has shown a personal interest in trade policy and is focused on it. More importantly, Trump has broken with previous U.S. administrations and deployed the only leverage that matters to an export-oriented country like China: the credible threat of loss of market access.

The unprecedented willingness to do this provides U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer a huge, game-changing advantage over his predecessors. As we have seen, even the credible threat of loss of market access has a major impact on the export-driven Chinese economy and Chinese negotiators? attitudes.

Given mutual interest, a win-win deal seems within reach. The U.S. will be looking for commitments on removal of import barriers, progress on the legal framework and an end to forced IP transfer. Progress on these issues should advance the U.S. goal of reducing the bilateral trade deficit.

To avoid the mistakes of the past, any understandings must be clearly enforceable and linked to continued Chinese access to the U.S. market.

Chinese offers for state-directed increases in purchases of U.S. goods should be viewed with skepticism; while making for good headlines, they are not sustainable if this is done through one-off, mandated purchases rather than an increase in aggregate demand for imports.

China knows that there is no real substitute for the American market. So in exchange for these asks, the predictable Chinese demand is straightforward: continued access to the U.S. market on commercially competitive terms.

https://thehill.com/opinion/finance/425870-trump-bucked-orthodoxy-on-china-and-it-just-might-work
 
morekaos said:
So far I think swimmingly....

Yeah...you quoted this piece already and it's an opinion piece. 

Please find some new material.

Oh...and that rework of NAFTA?  So INCREDIBLE?  Classic Trump...change the name, slap a coat of gold paint on it, and now "IT'S THE NEW AND IMPROVED TAJ MAHAL!"  If Trump couldn't coax any of substance from Mexico or Canada, what makes you think that China is going to be any more giving?

The end result will be the same...some puff agreement with no substantive changes or terms but Trump will parade around like something important happened. 
 
It was funny seeing those gop congressmen attacking Cohen yesterday. 

?I'm with her" was a lame slogan, but knowing who Trump is, their  deal is "I'm with him"?  With that scummy sleazebag ? Just perfect .
 
Back
Top