That is not dead which can eternal lie, and with strange aeons bring us some web forums whereupon we can gather
http://garbi.online/forum/
Why wouldn't they? The story ends with heaven on earth, after all.LordMortis wrote: Tue Dec 26, 2017 3:30 pmIt's weird but to my untrained eye, they seem to be trying to prepare for it by bringing it about. Trump is like some sort of nationalization or David Koresch, where "drinking the KoolAid" is a bit too close to being literal for my comfort.a necessary precondition for the End Times
It's been funny to watch the pivot to "but...but...but...business gets done on a golf course!" by exactly the same people who were crucifying Obama for golfing or taking vacations.Smoove_B wrote: Thu Dec 28, 2017 11:26 am Yesterday was day 87 of golf. Amazing - it's like a 1/4 of his first year as President.
That's an easy one to rationalize. Obama golfed in order to get away from the job. Lazy! Trump golfs to make deals. MAGA!Skinypupy wrote: Thu Dec 28, 2017 1:47 pmIt's been funny to watch the pivot to "but...but...but...business gets done on a golf course!" by exactly the same people who were crucifying Obama for golfing or taking vacations.Smoove_B wrote: Thu Dec 28, 2017 11:26 am Yesterday was day 87 of golf. Amazing - it's like a 1/4 of his first year as President.
This has happened to me as well. Same thing on various other topics. I'll say these weren't bright people in general to begin with but their vote still counts. Others who are anti-Trump but support the Republican agenda are more on the level of I'm getting mine. I despise them more - they know what they are doing.Kraken wrote: Thu Dec 28, 2017 2:20 pm It's not like I encounter a lot of Trump supporters, online or off...but the ones I've seen confronted with his golfing schedule have simply denied it as fake news.
Worse. He has to live completely uncaffeinated.Smoove_B wrote: Fri Dec 29, 2017 11:07 am I say this with all sincerity - does Mike Huckabee smoke crack?
President Trump on Friday called for the U.S. Postal Service to raise the shipping rates that it charges Amazon, the online retailer, in a deal that he said disadvantages the federal agency.
“Why is the United States Post Office, which is losing many billions of dollars a year, while charging Amazon and others so little to deliver their packages, making Amazon richer and the Post Office dumber and poorer? Should be charging MUCH MORE!” Trump tweeted Friday morning.
Trump is likely referring to a partnership between USPS and Amazon in which the Postal Service carries Amazon packages in the last leg of their journeys to customer doorsteps. (Amazon chief executive Jeffrey P. Bezos owns The Washington Post.)
In June, a hedge fund manager whose firm invests in FedEx wrote a Wall Street Journal op-ed asserting that the USPS effectively subsidizes Amazon, citing a Citigroup report that the Postal Service loses an average of $1.456 for each Amazon shipment it delivers.
Amazon rejected the critique. At the time, Amazon told Fortune magazine that the Postal Regulatory Commission, which oversees the USPS, “has consistently found that Amazon's contracts with the USPS are profitable.”
...
It was not clear what drove Trump’s interest in the shipping relationship between Amazon and the USPS on Friday morning. Shipping is in the news with the holiday season, and several cable networks mentioned Amazon and Bezos as part of features Friday morning, though they did not appear to mention the USPS issue.
Donald Trump is still “definitely involved” in the running of his Washington DC hotel, according to a recently revealed email from one of its most senior employees.
...
Shortly before his inauguration he declared that he had formally given "complete and total" to his sons Donald Jr and Eric Trump.
But that claim appeared to have been contradicted by the director of revenue management at the Trump International Hotel in Washington DC.
"I had a brief meeting with him a few weeks ago, and he was asking about banquet revenues and demographics," Jeng Chi Hung wrote in a September email to a former employer.
"And, he asked if his presidency hurt the businesses. So, he seems self aware about things, at least more than he lets on."
He added that Mr Trump was "supposed to be out of the business and passed on to his sons, but he's definitely involved”, according to the Daily Beast website, which originally reported the story.
But hotel spokeswoman Patricia Tang dismissed Mr Hung's claims. "Completely false and employee admitted to making the statement to inflate himself," she told The Independent.
It followed comments by the hotel's managing director Mickael Damelincourt who confirmed that Mr Hung had sent the email but described its contents as "total nonsense”.
“Upon review of the email referenced in your inquiry, we have met with the individual and he has confirmed that he made these comments up in an effort to enhance his sense of importance to a former employer,” he said.
“In fact, this individual confirmed to me today that he has never met the President nor did any conversation ever take place. We are continuing to investigate this matter internally.”
Mr Hung told the publication he could not comment on the email.
It's extremely generous to say that it's unclear what's driving Trump's interest in this. He hates the "Amazon Washington Post" (as he likes to call it), and sees an opportunity to potentially hurt Amazon as revenge, and a potential point of leverage to get Bezos and his executive staff to lean on the Washington Post to go easy on Trump.Isgrimnur wrote: Fri Dec 29, 2017 2:14 pm WaPo
President Trump on Friday called for the U.S. Postal Service to raise the shipping rates that it charges Amazon, the online retailer, in a deal that he said disadvantages the federal agency.
“Why is the United States Post Office, which is losing many billions of dollars a year, while charging Amazon and others so little to deliver their packages, making Amazon richer and the Post Office dumber and poorer? Should be charging MUCH MORE!” Trump tweeted Friday morning.
Trump is likely referring to a partnership between USPS and Amazon in which the Postal Service carries Amazon packages in the last leg of their journeys to customer doorsteps. (Amazon chief executive Jeffrey P. Bezos owns The Washington Post.)
In June, a hedge fund manager whose firm invests in FedEx wrote a Wall Street Journal op-ed asserting that the USPS effectively subsidizes Amazon, citing a Citigroup report that the Postal Service loses an average of $1.456 for each Amazon shipment it delivers.
Amazon rejected the critique. At the time, Amazon told Fortune magazine that the Postal Regulatory Commission, which oversees the USPS, “has consistently found that Amazon's contracts with the USPS are profitable.”
...
It was not clear what drove Trump’s interest in the shipping relationship between Amazon and the USPS on Friday morning. Shipping is in the news with the holiday season, and several cable networks mentioned Amazon and Bezos as part of features Friday morning, though they did not appear to mention the USPS issue.
It's more of an issue of whether or not the rates are profitable. It's fine if Amazon is getting a better rate, as long as that's driven by things like volume discounts rather than corporate favoritism or corruption or the like. If the USPS is making money off the contracts, then they get a lot less suspicious.tgb wrote: Fri Dec 29, 2017 3:24 pm If Amazon is indeed getting a better shipping rate than everyone else, Fuckhead might be right on this one.
Stopped clock, and all of that..............
The last sentence being the key here, of course. We simply can't have the fact that 11 people were killed and a massive environmental disaster was created to interfere with oil company profits.The Trump administration is rolling back offshore drilling rules put in place after the 2010 Deepwater Horizon disaster killed 11 workers and spewed millions of barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico.
President Donald Trump in April ordered Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke to review a raft of Obama-era safety rules that sought to curb accidents and pollution by oil and gas drillers operating in U.S. waters. The agency on Thursday proposed several changes to those regulations, including scrapping a requirement that operators certify through a third party that their safety devices are functioning properly.
The changes will save companies at least $288 million over 10 years, according to the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement.
I dunno, I think the key part is "Obama-era rules". These specific rules are just the next on the list.Skinypupy wrote: Fri Dec 29, 2017 4:06 pm You know those oil industry regulations that Obama put in place last year? The ones that came after 6 years of analysis into the gulf oil spill? Shocking no one, Trump just undid them all.
The last sentence being the key here, of course. We simply can't have the fact that 11 people were killed and a massive environmental disaster was created to interfere with oil company profits.The Trump administration is rolling back offshore drilling rules put in place after the 2010 Deepwater Horizon disaster killed 11 workers and spewed millions of barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico.
President Donald Trump in April ordered Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke to review a raft of Obama-era safety rules that sought to curb accidents and pollution by oil and gas drillers operating in U.S. waters. The agency on Thursday proposed several changes to those regulations, including scrapping a requirement that operators certify through a third party that their safety devices are functioning properly.
The changes will save companies at least $288 million over 10 years, according to the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement.
Right, but none of BP's competitors bore the cost. The thinking may be to just hope that you're not the one to roll snake eyes.Skinypupy wrote: Fri Dec 29, 2017 4:22 pm The weird thing is, it was estimated that the cost of the Deepwater Horizon disaster to BP was $61.2 billion.
So how does cutting regulation to save $288 million over 10 years across an entire industry (one that makes billions in profit every quarter) make any sort of financial sense at all? Seems like the potential risk would far outweigh the reward.
I can't help but envision every one of these assholes as mustache-twirling, Snidley Whiplash-style cartoon villains at this point.El Guapo wrote: Fri Dec 29, 2017 4:26 pmRight, but none of BP's competitors bore the cost. The thinking may be to just hope that you're not the one to roll snake eyes.Skinypupy wrote: Fri Dec 29, 2017 4:22 pm The weird thing is, it was estimated that the cost of the Deepwater Horizon disaster to BP was $61.2 billion.
So how does cutting regulation to save $288 million over 10 years across an entire industry (one that makes billions in profit every quarter) make any sort of financial sense at all? Seems like the potential risk would far outweigh the reward.
It's been 25 degrees warmer than average here in Utah for the past 3 days. By Trump logic, climate change is now real again.tjg_marantz wrote: Thu Dec 28, 2017 9:53 pm https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/sta ... 7229701120
That's not how this works, any of it.
