@mdkDo you think the U.S. should have a national language?

If you can’t communicate with the rest of the country you have no business living there. In other words all the frakkin immigrants need to learn the frakkin English language.

I work retail, some stupid customer came up to me rattling off in Spanish. I very politely said no habla and walked away. I don’t help those who don’t help themselves or don’t even make an effort.

<Snipped quote by POOHEAD189>

If you can’t communicate with the rest of the country you have no business living there. In other words all the frakkin immigrants need to learn the frakkin English language.

I work retail, some stupid customer came up to me rattling off in Spanish. I very politely said no habla and walked away. I don’t help those who don’t help themselves or don’t even make an effort.

they said, making no effort

Just sayin'

@mdk if they want me to put forth effort for them they have to put forth effort themselves. If they can’t/won’t they don’t deserve any help.

>gets paid to put forth effort in helping people
>puts forth no effort

lol k

If you can’t communicate with the rest of the country you have no business living there. In other words all the frakkin immigrants need to learn the frakkin English language.

I work retail, some stupid customer came up to me rattling off in Spanish. I very politely said no habla and walked away. I don’t help those who don’t help themselves or don’t even make an effort.

quick question, were they stupid because they're monolingual or stupid because they were asking a retail worker for help?

They were stupid to expect I am going to help them in any language but English

Tariffs, anyone?

(I'm starting to think Canadians don't give a whit about politics...)

They were stupid to expect I am going to help them in any language but English

but Americans don't speak English

<Snipped quote by Burning Kitty>

but Americans don't speak English

Damn straight we speak Merican.

<Snipped quote by Mara>

Damn straight we speak Merican.

I'm sure making it a requirement for someone to speak a language as hackneyed as American "English" is against the Geneva Conventions

<Snipped quote by Burning Kitty>

I'm sure making it a requirement for someone to speak a language as hackneyed as American "English" is against the Geneva Conventions

You are sure? You are wrong.

Tariffs, anyone?

(I'm starting to think Canadians don't give a whit about politics...)

In principle, I don't like.

But as long as they're levied against us, I don't see why we shouldn't level the playing field. Level is fair, fair is good. I can see some value to the (I think) current strategy -- propose and/or enact some really painful tariffs that nobody wants, just to strong-arm Justin to the negotiating table and ultimately reach something closer to "free and fair" like Trump keeps talking about. I'm not crazy about the means here, but I like the ends, and this way beats doing nothing.

Ain't it funny how Obama's Iran deal was "bad" even though it was an actual deal with binding stipulations that Iran was proven, internationally, to have been complying with, but Donald Trump gets Kim to pinkie promise him and all of a sudden that's considered a historic deal?

@mdk

Just to clear up any misunderstanding, what tariffs are we talking about here? The recent tariffs being implemented by Canada (100's of US products), by my understanding, were already retaliatory in nature, and were calculated to be as close to the net loss Canada would suffer from the aluminium and steel tariffs imposed by America.

As for negotiating tactics, yeah, I pretty much think it's all a strategy to try and put Trudeau in a weaker position. I think that what Trump is forgetting, is that Trudeau, for all his sunshine politics, is still relatively rather... aggressively petty? As well as insecure in his own right.
The Handshake, if anyone remembers it, portrays this quite well. All hilarity aside, what we are looking at is a man in his 40's and by all appearances and evidence, fit and healthy, manhandling a 70+ year old man. Admittedly Trump needed to get his handshaking under control.

I'm just worried this will escalate too far, and that neither will be able to step away from their rhetoric, leading to an actual trade war, which would be catastrophic for both sides.

This is why Trudeau shook Trump's hand that way. Trump does that to everyone who is unprepared. There is no one more petty when it comes to handshakes than Donald Trump.

Admittedly Trump needed to get his handshaking under control.

The point is, I refuse to believe that a guy who can do this, needed to go to the lengths he did. A firm handshake and setting his stance properly would have been more than enough. Notice his grin. Trudeau is very petty.

Also your link appears to be dead but I'm sure it's one of the many gems we were presented by Trump acting as if the political stage was the same as business dealings behind closed doors, and attempting petty psychological tricks to gain an edge. I'd rather avoid talking about his handshakes, since it is a dead horse. I only brought it up to illustrate Trudeau can be equally belligerent.

That grin you're getting hung up on is one second, literally like a frame in a handshake that, to me, looked completely normal for the most part. The only thing Trudeau did was brace himself from the inevitable pull, and who can blame him? I think you're giving Trump a little too much pity on this. He's not just an old man. He's an old, vindictive, petty man, among other things. You're right though, it's just a handshake. I'm just not going to feel bad that someone came along and countered his bizarre handshake-pull.

Also, sweet handstand/plank/whatever the hell he's doing on that table.

dialmformusicology.com/2017/02/15/tru… regarding the handshake. Quite a bit of planning, and forethought. I don't feel sorry for Trump, I disapprove of Trudeau's actions. Great fun, tells us quite a bit about our PM. (still voted for him, who wants a pushover PM?)

Ain't it funny how Obama's Iran deal was "bad" even though it was an actual deal with binding stipulations that Iran was proven, internationally, to have been complying with, but Donald Trump gets Kim to pinkie promise him and all of a sudden that's considered a historic deal?

Even with those stipulations, the Iran deal was considered largely impotent by many analysts and politicians alike. The stipulations did not actually prevent them from developing nuclear weapons, merely throw a temporary halt, extending the time before they became nuclear capable.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_…
investors.com/politics/editorials/the…
nationalreview.com/2015/10/why-iran-d…

So while the deal was working as intended, the deal was never truly effective in the first place.

As for the deal with NK, the easiest way to sum it up is: NK is already a nuclear power, and has ICBMs. A pinkie promise is essentially all that has kept the world from MAD in the first place. By getting North Korea to say they will (whether or not they choose to follow it) denuclearize fully, Trump has achieved more than Obama ever did with either North Korea - under the exact same leadership - or Iran.

Compare: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Compreh…
With: nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/full… (sadly Wikipedia seems to be slacking)

While one uses much more technical language, and is 109 pages long - the JCPA - it does not prevent nuclear development in anyway. In fact at the conclusion of this treaty, Iran, if they had not already become nuclear, would be closer than before. In fact the confiscating of their uranium stockpiles would leave them with a significant enough stockpile to become nuclear in months, if not weeks.

The shorter, simpler document, makes clear and with no room for maneuvering, that to abide by the agreement they strive towards complete denuclearization, as well as other agreements that seem to be ignored in favor of the hot button issue.

Arguing as to whether they will abide by this, while worthwhile to some extent considering their past, is ultimately pointless. As certain parties argued as Trump declared the Iran deal a failure "Any deal is better than no deal!" Following that logic, the true value of this deal will be determined by the actions of the DPRK that follows. Should it succeed, the deal will have ended one threat to global security, permanently. Had the JCPA succeeded, it merely would have postponed a global security threat.

Edit: Finally both matters are exceedingly complex and attempting to compare the two, while they appear similar, is comparing apple's and oranges (HA!) Both can be broken down with much more detail without attempting to connect the two.

Yeah, nah, a pinkie promise means nothing.

It's definitely great optics for Trump, though. Tons of people who don't understand that literally all Trump got was a non-binding pinkie promise will think of him as the president who solved North Korea, but really he accomplished basically nothing. Calling it a deal is generous.

It's hilarious how the Iran deal is seen as impotent but a pinkie promise isn't. Like, really, get real.

And for the record, I'm all for peace with North Korea. I just find the congnative dissonance surrounding this whole thing funny. The very same people who thought of the Iran deal as having been impotent, now think a pinkie promise isn't. The very same people who thought the Iran deal didn't go far enough and rejected it - finding it preferable to scrap the whole thing because they thought it was that bad - have now adopted the "any deal is a good deal" stance with regards to the North Korea """deal""".

And by the way, what politicians thought of the Iran deal means nothing. They're politicians. Why you are bringing up their concerns as if they matter on any level is beyond me. The Iran deal was working as intended, and while it did not place permanent limitations of the Iranian program, it was the best we were realistically going to get. Now we have nothing and no chance of getting Iran back to the negotiating table, so it's funny how the criticism is always that the deal only delayed Iran. Now there's nothing delaying them or serving as a stepping stone towards something better, so.. uh, great job?

EDIT: Also, again, nothing in the North Korean deal is binding in any way, shape or form. At best, the North Korean "deal" is as useless as you say the Iran deal was. And hell, at least the Iran deal had provisions actively enforced and monitored by the international community.

... Look, I just got back from work, and I have Rp's to respond to. Dissembling that post is honestly too much effort though. (Easy one here.)

I'll say now that your post is filled with sophistry, and multiple fallacies, as well as, ironically enough cognitive dissonance. (I anxiously await your response that I am abusing fallacies, aka fallacy fallacy) You misquote me, ignore half of what I say, and clearly did not even explore any of the links I provided. You are welcome to consider this post as your 'victory' since you clearly are more interested in attaining that, than an actual truth. (go on, tell me the fallacy here, It's an easy one.).

Honestly though, I've made the conscious decision to no longer have discussions with people who are unwilling or unable to receive information. The fact is it accomplishes nothing but to allow the two who are arguing to stroke their own ego.

If you wish to engage in an honest, intellectual discussion, rather than engaging in a debate, I would be happy to entertain you. As hard as the two are to distinguish, a debate and a discussion are not one and the same. However, I will honestly applaud you for your debating skills. Bravo.