On Jun 23, 2024 at 5:00:46 PM MST, "Governor Swill" wrote
<1odh7jpeaj7mvh240msoch7cj8fq0trd2v@4ax.com>:

> On 22 Jun 2024 15:26:35 GMT, Snit <Brock.McNuggets@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 21 Jun 2024 22:15:12 GMT, Snit wrote:
>>>
>>>> They pay about the same percentage in taxes (or less), not including the money
>>>> they hide. Which is often a lot. No reason they could not pay a higher
>>>> percentage in taxes. No reason they SHOULD not.
>>>
>>> From whom much is given, much is expected.
>>>
>>> One reason we have, or had, a large middle class is that Henry Ford decided to
>>> dramatically increase his workers' pay despite the depression. He wanted to
>>> make sure
>>> they could afford to buy what they made.
>>>
>>> But the middle class is shrinking and has been since Nixon was sworn in.
>>>
>>> See the graph at, "Share of adults in the US middle class has decreased
>>> considerably since
>>> 1971."
>>> <https://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/0912/which-income-class-are-you.aspx>
>>>
>>> Swill
>>>
>>
>> Reagan made it worse by pushing the idiotic trickle down myth.
>
> Yes, and by subtly shifting the tax burden down to lower income groups and
> running up
> debt.
>
> Swill

Yet somehow he is the hero of many.

--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

On 24 Jun 2024 01:44:03 GMT, Snit <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Jun 23, 2024 at 5:00:46?PM MST, "Governor Swill" wrote
><1odh7jpeaj7mvh240msoch7cj8fq0trd2v@4ax.com>:
>
>> On 22 Jun 2024 15:26:35 GMT, Snit <Brock.McNuggets@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 21 Jun 2024 22:15:12 GMT, Snit wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> They pay about the same percentage in taxes (or less), not including the money
>>>>> they hide. Which is often a lot. No reason they could not pay a higher
>>>>> percentage in taxes. No reason they SHOULD not.
>>>>
>>>> From whom much is given, much is expected.
>>>>
>>>> One reason we have, or had, a large middle class is that Henry Ford decided to
>>>> dramatically increase his workers' pay despite the depression. He wanted to
>>>> make sure
>>>> they could afford to buy what they made.
>>>>
>>>> But the middle class is shrinking and has been since Nixon was sworn in.
>>>>
>>>> See the graph at, "Share of adults in the US middle class has decreased
>>>> considerably since
>>>> 1971."
>>>> <https://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/0912/which-income-class-are-you.aspx>
>>>>
>>>> Swill
>>>>
>>>
>>> Reagan made it worse by pushing the idiotic trickle down myth.
>>
>> Yes, and by subtly shifting the tax burden down to lower income groups and
>> running up
>> debt.
>>
>> Swill
>
>Yet somehow he is the hero of many.

His worst action, the single most destructive thing any President since Calvin Coolidge
has done, was to abolish the Fairness Doctrine.

Swill

On 6/23/24 9:13 PM, Creon wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Jun 2024 10:40:48 -0400, -hh wrote:
>
>> On 6/21/24 3:19 PM, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>> David Brooks wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>>>
>>>> On 21/06/2024 12:04, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>>>> chrisv wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Tyrone wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have no gripe against any class.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Anyone who gets off their ass and goes to work every day gets my
>>>>>> respect.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I used to be poor, but then I grew up and got a real job.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Me too. I've lived in a trailor house. I've been homeless. I got
> my
>>>>>> shit together in my early 20's, however.
>>>>>
>>>>> I grew up poor in rural Illinois. But my (divorced) father would
> treat us
>>>>> to (compensatory?) zoo and museum visits, science-fiction paperbacks,
>>>>> telescopes, microscopes... We even managed to get a set of Worldbook
>>>>> Encyclopedia.
>>>>>
>>>>> And look at me now! Old, pudgy, retired, and tinkering endlessly on
> laptops.
>>>>>
>>>>> The Circle of Life! :-D
>>>>
>>>> Indeed! 🙂
>>>>
>>>> Here ya go!
>>>> https://i.ibb.co/d74mPWt/cid-62-C2583-C-7-EA3-44-AD-8-D1-D-99-F54-B0-
> EE07-E.jpg
>>>>
>>>> So very true!
>>>
>>> That pic leaves out (at least in my case) and additional bicycling
> frame as
>>> I continue to ride after age 60. It also leaves out my two stints with
> a walker
>>> thanks to hip replacements thanks to tons of pavement running, soccer,
> and
>>> free training.
>>
>> Tangentially, those injuries are similar to the dichotomy between lower
>> income working class jobs (eg, trades) vs the top 5% who did their stint
>> sitting in an office chair: trades workers get their bodies "beaten up"
>> by their jobs, which then requires such expensive medical care (if they
>> can afford it) at significantly lower ages ... 50's instead of 70's ...
>> which also adversely affects their physical ability to keep on working.
>>
>> This is where raising the FRA is harming essentially that entire class
>> of workers, but not white collar workers who are less reliant on
>> physical labor in their job, thus enabling them to be more readily able
>> to work to age 67 instead of being forced due to physical limitations to
>> retire at age 55-60 and hope that savings are adequate to bridge them
>> until Social Security starts, particularly if they were un/underinsured
>> on healthcare insurance to make bodily repairs affordable.
>>
>>
>>> Anyway, I'll be 67 soon and happy to still be physically acive, in
>>> spite of my pudge and my computer addiction.
>>>
>>
>> You have some years on me, but yes: staying active is a key to
>> longevity, as are other factors such as mental well-being: avoid
>> becoming like chri^H^H Grandpa Simpson, bellowing at random birds,
>> chipmunks and twigs <g>.
>>
>>
>> -hh
>
> I'd just like to point out that relying on SS for retirement isn't
> a very good strategy.

SS wasn't originally intended to be "good", per se: its intent was to
be a safety net that was better than having utterly nothing. The
non-wealthy's were pretty much that they had to work until they died.

> (On the other hand, I got lucky when it came
> to pursuing my career passions, so I am now all but retired, and not
> drawing SS.)

The heyday of good retirement benefits probably peaked in the 1970s,
thanks to unions and reasonably generous corporate pensions. Since
then, corporate bean counters recognized that defined cash balance
accounts incurred no long term open-ended liabilities like defined
benefit pensions did, which is what prompted the termination of
corporate pension plans, oft replacing them with a 401(k). The net
outcome of this has been lower performance for individuals and an
increased incidence rate of catastrophic retirement failures because
most all of the financial management has been dumped on individuals,
most of which have never had any training (or skills) in this area.

> ObLinux:
> Most of that career work was involving Linux systems since the very
> beginning in 1992, and I heartily endorse anyone who can be gainfully
> entrepreneurial with Linux.
>
> Also: testing this newsreader on the (Linux) laptop. It's a local
> build using the latest gmime, which properly handles the Newsgroups:
> header.
>

It appears to have posted successfully.

-hh

On Jun 24, 2024 at 9:56:47 AM MST, "Governor Swill" wrote
<399j7jdsbk1fnbnd2897kv0a04uoqld2c5@4ax.com>:

> On 24 Jun 2024 01:44:03 GMT, Snit <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Jun 23, 2024 at 5:00:46?PM MST, "Governor Swill" wrote
>> <1odh7jpeaj7mvh240msoch7cj8fq0trd2v@4ax.com>:
>>
>>> On 22 Jun 2024 15:26:35 GMT, Snit <Brock.McNuggets@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 21 Jun 2024 22:15:12 GMT, Snit wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> They pay about the same percentage in taxes (or less), not including the money
>>>>>> they hide. Which is often a lot. No reason they could not pay a higher
>>>>>> percentage in taxes. No reason they SHOULD not.
>>>>>
>>>>> From whom much is given, much is expected.
>>>>>
>>>>> One reason we have, or had, a large middle class is that Henry Ford decided to
>>>>> dramatically increase his workers' pay despite the depression. He wanted to
>>>>> make sure
>>>>> they could afford to buy what they made.
>>>>>
>>>>> But the middle class is shrinking and has been since Nixon was sworn in.
>>>>>
>>>>> See the graph at, "Share of adults in the US middle class has decreased
>>>>> considerably since
>>>>> 1971."
>>>>> <https://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/0912/which-income-class-are-you.aspx>
>>>>>
>>>>> Swill
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Reagan made it worse by pushing the idiotic trickle down myth.
>>>
>>> Yes, and by subtly shifting the tax burden down to lower income groups and
>>> running up
>>> debt.
>>>
>>> Swill
>>
>> Yet somehow he is the hero of many.
>
> His worst action, the single most destructive thing any President since Calvin
> Coolidge
> has done, was to abolish the Fairness Doctrine.

He was deeply destructive to the country. No doubt.
>
> Swill

--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

On 2024-06-24, Creon <creon@creon.earth> wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Jun 2024 10:40:48 -0400, -hh wrote:
>
>> On 6/21/24 3:19 PM, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>> David Brooks wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>>>
>>>> On 21/06/2024 12:04, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>>>> chrisv wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Tyrone wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have no gripe against any class.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Anyone who gets off their ass and goes to work every day gets my
>>>>>> respect.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I used to be poor, but then I grew up and got a real job.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Me too. I've lived in a trailor house. I've been homeless. I got
> my
>>>>>> shit together in my early 20's, however.
>>>>>
>>>>> I grew up poor in rural Illinois. But my (divorced) father would
> treat us
>>>>> to (compensatory?) zoo and museum visits, science-fiction paperbacks,
>>>>> telescopes, microscopes... We even managed to get a set of Worldbook
>>>>> Encyclopedia.
>>>>>
>>>>> And look at me now! Old, pudgy, retired, and tinkering endlessly on
> laptops.
>>>>>
>>>>> The Circle of Life! :-D
>>>>
>>>> Indeed! 🙂
>>>>
>>>> Here ya go!
>>>> https://i.ibb.co/d74mPWt/cid-62-C2583-C-7-EA3-44-AD-8-D1-D-99-F54-B0-
> EE07-E.jpg
>>>>
>>>> So very true!
>>>
>>> That pic leaves out (at least in my case) and additional bicycling
> frame as
>>> I continue to ride after age 60. It also leaves out my two stints with
> a walker
>>> thanks to hip replacements thanks to tons of pavement running, soccer,
> and
>>> free training.
>>
>> Tangentially, those injuries are similar to the dichotomy between lower
>> income working class jobs (eg, trades) vs the top 5% who did their stint
>> sitting in an office chair: trades workers get their bodies "beaten up"
>> by their jobs, which then requires such expensive medical care (if they
>> can afford it) at significantly lower ages ... 50's instead of 70's ...
>> which also adversely affects their physical ability to keep on working.
>>
>> This is where raising the FRA is harming essentially that entire class
>> of workers, but not white collar workers who are less reliant on
>> physical labor in their job, thus enabling them to be more readily able
>> to work to age 67 instead of being forced due to physical limitations to
>> retire at age 55-60 and hope that savings are adequate to bridge them
>> until Social Security starts, particularly if they were un/underinsured
>> on healthcare insurance to make bodily repairs affordable.
>>
>>
>>> Anyway, I'll be 67 soon and happy to still be physically acive, in
> spite of my
>>> pudge and my computer addiction.
>>>
>>
>> You have some years on me, but yes: staying active is a key to
>> longevity, as are other factors such as mental well-being: avoid
>> becoming like chri^H^H Grandpa Simpson, bellowing at random birds,
>> chipmunks and twigs <g>.
>>
>>
>> -hh
>
> I'd just like to point out that relying on SS for retirement isn't
> a very good strategy. (On the other hand, I got lucky when it came
> to pursuing my career passions, so I am now all but retired, and not
> drawing SS.)
>
> ObLinux:
> Most of that career work was involving Linux systems since the very
> beginning in 1992, and I heartily endorse anyone who can be gainfully
> entrepreneurial with Linux.
>
> Also: testing this newsreader on the (Linux) laptop. It's a local
> build using the latest gmime, which properly handles the Newsgroups:
> header.

I agree with your statements. As for SS, if a person, even a financially inept person, invested the
SS amount they paid into for it's lifetime the return would surely be higher that what the
government is providing?

Am I wrong here?

Your newsreader seems to be working fine.
I can't get pan (stock deb package i think) to work under MXLinux. It will not post claiming some
vague error which i do not remember. Old age kicking in :)

--
Charlie Glock
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms"
- Thomas Jefferson 1776

Chris Ahlstrom wrote:

> -highhorse wrote:
>>
>> You have some years on me, but yes: staying active is a key to
>> longevity, as are other factors such as mental well-being: avoid
>> becoming like chri^H^H Grandpa Simpson, bellowing at random birds,
>> chipmunks and twigs <g>.

When birds and chipmonks start attacking decent, reasonable people
with idiocy and lies, I will bellow at them.

>I'm not active physically so much for longevity, but because it is fun,
>helps me feel energized for computer work, and makes my time on Earth more
>engaging.

I (re)started running in my mid 40's, because I felt that I had to do
something. I was having niggling physical issues, like back spasms or
hemorrhoids, and I couldn't break into a trot without an ache in my
left hamstring. I was like, "WTF, I'm not that old!"

Since I started running, all that got *much* better.

chrisv wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>
>> -highhorse wrote:
>>>
>>> You have some years on me, but yes: staying active is a key to
>>> longevity, as are other factors such as mental well-being: avoid
>>> becoming like chri^H^H Grandpa Simpson, bellowing at random birds,
>>> chipmunks and twigs <g>.
>
> When birds and chipmonks start attacking decent, reasonable people
> with idiocy and lies, I will bellow at them.
>
>>I'm not active physically so much for longevity, but because it is fun,
>>helps me feel energized for computer work, and makes my time on Earth more
>>engaging.
>
> I (re)started running in my mid 40's, because I felt that I had to do
> something. I was having niggling physical issues, like back spasms or
> hemorrhoids, and I couldn't break into a trot without an ache in my
> left hamstring. I was like, "WTF, I'm not that old!"
>
> Since I started running, all that got *much* better.

I don't run too much, and when I do I limit it to about a half-hour; don't want
to fsck up my hip replacements. (In our local "masters" soccer league, a number
of people fscked theirs up by continuing to play.) I ride the bike a lot and go
to the gym.

Anyway, enough about me :-D

--
Green light in A.M. for new projects. Red light in P.M. for traffic tickets.

On 6/24/24 4:48 PM, Charlie Glock wrote:
> On 2024-06-24, Creon <creon@creon.earth> wrote:
>> On Sun, 23 Jun 2024 10:40:48 -0400, -hh wrote:
>>
>>> On 6/21/24 3:19 PM, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>>> David Brooks wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>>>>
>>>>> On 21/06/2024 12:04, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>>>>> chrisv wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Tyrone wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I have no gripe against any class.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Anyone who gets off their ass and goes to work every day gets my
>>>>>>> respect.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I used to be poor, but then I grew up and got a real job.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Me too. I've lived in a trailor house. I've been homeless. I got
>> my
>>>>>>> shit together in my early 20's, however.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I grew up poor in rural Illinois. But my (divorced) father would
>> treat us
>>>>>> to (compensatory?) zoo and museum visits, science-fiction paperbacks,
>>>>>> telescopes, microscopes... We even managed to get a set of Worldbook
>>>>>> Encyclopedia.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And look at me now! Old, pudgy, retired, and tinkering endlessly on
>> laptops.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The Circle of Life! :-D
>>>>>
>>>>> Indeed! 🙂
>>>>>
>>>>> Here ya go!
>>>>> https://i.ibb.co/d74mPWt/cid-62-C2583-C-7-EA3-44-AD-8-D1-D-99-F54-B0-
>> EE07-E.jpg
>>>>>
>>>>> So very true!
>>>>
>>>> That pic leaves out (at least in my case) and additional bicycling
>> frame as
>>>> I continue to ride after age 60. It also leaves out my two stints with
>> a walker
>>>> thanks to hip replacements thanks to tons of pavement running, soccer,
>> and
>>>> free training.
>>>
>>> Tangentially, those injuries are similar to the dichotomy between lower
>>> income working class jobs (eg, trades) vs the top 5% who did their stint
>>> sitting in an office chair: trades workers get their bodies "beaten up"
>>> by their jobs, which then requires such expensive medical care (if they
>>> can afford it) at significantly lower ages ... 50's instead of 70's ...
>>> which also adversely affects their physical ability to keep on working.
>>>
>>> This is where raising the FRA is harming essentially that entire class
>>> of workers, but not white collar workers who are less reliant on
>>> physical labor in their job, thus enabling them to be more readily able
>>> to work to age 67 instead of being forced due to physical limitations to
>>> retire at age 55-60 and hope that savings are adequate to bridge them
>>> until Social Security starts, particularly if they were un/underinsured
>>> on healthcare insurance to make bodily repairs affordable.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Anyway, I'll be 67 soon and happy to still be physically acive, in
>> spite of my
>>>> pudge and my computer addiction.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You have some years on me, but yes: staying active is a key to
>>> longevity, as are other factors such as mental well-being: avoid
>>> becoming like chri^H^H Grandpa Simpson, bellowing at random birds,
>>> chipmunks and twigs <g>.
>>>
>>>
>>> -hh
>>
>> I'd just like to point out that relying on SS for retirement isn't
>> a very good strategy. (On the other hand, I got lucky when it came
>> to pursuing my career passions, so I am now all but retired, and not
>> drawing SS.)
>>
>> ObLinux:
>> Most of that career work was involving Linux systems since the very
>> beginning in 1992, and I heartily endorse anyone who can be gainfully
>> entrepreneurial with Linux.
>>
>> Also: testing this newsreader on the (Linux) laptop. It's a local
>> build using the latest gmime, which properly handles the Newsgroups:
>> header.
>
> I agree with your statements. As for SS, if a person, even a financially inept person, invested the
> SS amount they paid into for it's lifetime the return would surely be higher that what the
> government is providing?
>
> Am I wrong here?

Yes, you're wrong here.

SS is a combination of a retirement pension and disability insurance.
The typical "but the Stock Market!" claim focus on only the pension and
totally ignore the costs of the second part.

Plus the Stock Market's performance only has 'good' returns when viewed
in the extremely long term: for individual investors, there's a huge
risk in 'Sequence of Returns' where a recession or correction can
effectively wipe them out in just a decade (or less): if one goes to
look at the Market's ~98 year history, it has had periods where returns
are flat for 15+ years. Consider a model using the 4% Rule where the
principle is effectively earning 0% return: after 15 years of that,
one's principle has eroded by 60% ... now figure out how big the returns
need to be over the next decade to get back to 'Day 1' break-even.

-hh

Tariffs are soaring GreatDepression/WWII style.

Does Buffet's secretary's income cover her rent ? Mine doesn't.

Relf wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

> Tariffs are soaring GreatDepression/WWII style.

Tariffs imposed by whom, on who?

--
If one cannot enjoy reading a book over and over again, there is no use
in reading it at all.
-- Oscar Wilde

Relf (me): Tariffs are soaring GreatDepression/WWII style.

Ahlstrom: Tariffs imposed by whom, on who?

Joe Biden recently put 100% tariffs on electric vehicles from China, for example.
Don't tax you, don't tax me, tax Chiiina.

On Sat, 29 Jun 2024 17:17:41 -0700 (Seattle), "Relf" <Usenet@Jeff-Relf.Me> wrote:

>Relf (me): Tariffs are soaring GreatDepression/WWII style.
>
>Ahlstrom: Tariffs imposed by whom, on who?
>
>Joe Biden recently put 100% tariffs on electric vehicles from China, for example.
>Don't tax you, don't tax me, tax Chiiina.

I recall my mom being grateful she bought new tires the month *before* Trump put a tariff
on them. Overnight prices went up on tires not only from China but from domestics as
well.

Swill
NP: Heart - Johnny Moon

Relf wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

> Relf (me): Tariffs are soaring GreatDepression/WWII style.
>
> Ahlstrom: Tariffs imposed by whom, on who?
>
> Joe Biden recently put 100% tariffs on electric vehicles from China, for example.
> Don't tax you, don't tax me, tax Chiiina.

"Biden’s car tariffs are largely symbolic because Chinese EVs were virtually
locked out of the US by tariffs imposed by Donald Trump during his
presidency."

--
Be cautious in your daily affairs.

You (Ahlstrom) replied ( to me ):
> > Joe Biden recently put 100% tariffs on electric vehicles from China, for example.
> > Don't tax me, tax Chiiina.
>
> "Biden’s car tariffs are largely symbolic because Chinese EVs were virtually
> locked out of the US by tariffs imposed by Donald Trump during his presidency."

You can pick your nose but not your president.

NPR:

May 14, 2024 — President Biden has quadrupled tariffs on electric vehicles from China
— from 25% to an eye-watering 100%.

Senate.GOV:

Ignoring the experts, Hoover signed the tariff [Smoot-Hawley] on June 17, 1930.

As the economists predicted, the high tariff proved to be a disaster.

Even before its enactment, U.S. trading partners began retaliating by
raising their tariff rates, which froze international trade.

Chris Ahlstrom wrote:

> "Biden’s car tariffs are largely symbolic because Chinese EVs were virtually
> locked out of the US by tariffs imposed by Donald Trump during his
> presidency."

Good. For both of them. Fsck China.

chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote:

>>Chris, think, though. We owe Chinese investors trillions. Why would
>>they go to war, and just axe that?
>
>Taiwan is worth more $trillions. Plus they just want it.

I guess, but having WWIII doesn't exactly keep Taiwan's value in that
the American market for its exports would dry up. If the world is
really hell-bent on war, we're sacrificing all the progress we thought
we'd made. Maybe a lot of it was imaginary, I don't entirely dispute
that, but blowing shit up doesn't exactly help.

--
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

On Mon, 01 Jul 2024 21:41:06 -0400, Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote:

>The greatest violent threat to the U.S. government is if Biden wins,
>and Trump supporters start a civil war, or if Trump wins, and the left
>starts one. Not from China or anyone else.

Drama queens. Go figure.

Swill

On Tue, 02 Jul 2024 08:20:09 -0400, Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote:

>chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
>>>Chris, think, though. We owe Chinese investors trillions. Why would
>>>they go to war, and just axe that?
>>
>>Taiwan is worth more $trillions. Plus they just want it.
>
>
>I guess, but having WWIII doesn't exactly keep Taiwan's value in that
>the American market for its exports would dry up. If the world is
>really hell-bent on war, we're sacrificing all the progress we thought
>we'd made. Maybe a lot of it was imaginary, I don't entirely dispute
>that, but blowing shit up doesn't exactly help.

And that's the trick. It's only worth something now. Like eastern Ukraine, once it's
been fought over for a while, it's not worth having anymore.

Swill

Governor Swill wrote:

> Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Chris, think, though. We owe Chinese investors trillions. Why would
>>>>they go to war, and just axe that?
>>>
>>>Taiwan is worth more $trillions. Plus they just want it.
>>
>>I guess, but having WWIII doesn't exactly keep Taiwan's value in that
>>the American market for its exports would dry up. If the world is
>>really hell-bent on war, we're sacrificing all the progress we thought
>>we'd made. Maybe a lot of it was imaginary, I don't entirely dispute
>>that, but blowing shit up doesn't exactly help.

Who is going to blow it up? All they need to do is keep anything from
going in or out, until they get submission.

>And that's the trick. It's only worth something now. Like eastern Ukraine, once it's
>been fought over for a while, it's not worth having anymore.

It will still be worth having. It's a matter of national honor, for
them. They will sacrifice for it. They can't consider themselves the
world's preeminent power, yet tolerate that "breakaway province" right
off their coast.

chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>Governor Swill wrote:
>> Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Chris, think, though. We owe Chinese investors trillions. Why would
>>>>>they go to war, and just axe that?
>>>>
>>>>Taiwan is worth more $trillions. Plus they just want it.
>>>
>>>I guess, but having WWIII doesn't exactly keep Taiwan's value in that
>>>the American market for its exports would dry up. If the world is
>>>really hell-bent on war, we're sacrificing all the progress we thought
>>>we'd made. Maybe a lot of it was imaginary, I don't entirely dispute
>>>that, but blowing shit up doesn't exactly help.
>
>Who is going to blow it up? All they need to do is keep anything from
>going in or out, until they get submission.
>
>>And that's the trick. It's only worth something now. Like eastern Ukraine, once it's
>>been fought over for a while, it's not worth having anymore.
>
>It will still be worth having. It's a matter of national honor, for
>them. They will sacrifice for it. They can't consider themselves the
>world's preeminent power, yet tolerate that "breakaway province" right
>off their coast.

And as usual, Chris V. acts like he knows more than anyone else in the
entire universe, boring.

--
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

Joel wrote:
> chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> Governor Swill wrote:
>>> Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Chris, think, though. We owe Chinese investors trillions. Why would
>>>>>> they go to war, and just axe that?
>>>>>
>>>>> Taiwan is worth more $trillions. Plus they just want it.
>>>>
>>>> I guess, but having WWIII doesn't exactly keep Taiwan's value in that
>>>> the American market for its exports would dry up. If the world is
>>>> really hell-bent on war, we're sacrificing all the progress we thought
>>>> we'd made. Maybe a lot of it was imaginary, I don't entirely dispute
>>>> that, but blowing shit up doesn't exactly help.
>>
>> Who is going to blow it up? All they need to do is keep anything from
>> going in or out, until they get submission.
>>
>>> And that's the trick. It's only worth something now. Like eastern Ukraine, once it's
>>> been fought over for a while, it's not worth having anymore.
>>
>> It will still be worth having. It's a matter of national honor, for
>> them. They will sacrifice for it. They can't consider themselves the
>> world's preeminent power, yet tolerate that "breakaway province" right
>> off their coast.
>
>
> And as usual, Chris V. acts like he knows more than anyone else in the
> entire universe, boring.
>
LOL

On Tue, 02 Jul 2024 14:53:25 -0500, chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote:

>Governor Swill wrote:
>
>> Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Chris, think, though. We owe Chinese investors trillions. Why would
>>>>>they go to war, and just axe that?
>>>>
>>>>Taiwan is worth more $trillions. Plus they just want it.
>>>
>>>I guess, but having WWIII doesn't exactly keep Taiwan's value in that
>>>the American market for its exports would dry up. If the world is
>>>really hell-bent on war, we're sacrificing all the progress we thought
>>>we'd made. Maybe a lot of it was imaginary, I don't entirely dispute
>>>that, but blowing shit up doesn't exactly help.
>
>Who is going to blow it up? All they need to do is keep anything from
>going in or out, until they get submission.

And how are they going to work that trick?

>>And that's the trick. It's only worth something now. Like eastern Ukraine, once it's
>>been fought over for a while, it's not worth having anymore.
>
>It will still be worth having.

Not if it's all blown to rubble.

>It's a matter of national honor, for
>them. They will sacrifice for it. They can't consider themselves the
>world's preeminent power, yet tolerate that "breakaway province" right
>off their coast.

Sounds like a personal problem to me.

Swill
NP: Al Jarreau - What You Do To Me

Governor Swill wrote:

>And how are they going to work that trick?

It's an island. They have a navy and they have missles. Figure it
out.

> Not if it's all blown to rubble.

There is no need or motive for anyone to "blow it to rubble".

Even if it was "blown to rubble", you would be wrong. It would still
be worth having. Things can be rebuilt. Look what's happened in
China in only the last 20 years.

> Sounds like a personal problem to me.

Idiot.

Just keep whistling Dixie, while China prepares for war. "They
wouldn't *dare* blockade Taiwan!"

Your response will be deleted, unread.

On Wed, 03 Jul 2024 05:25:03 -0500, chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote:

>Governor Swill wrote:
>
>>And how are they going to work that trick?
>
>It's an island. They have a navy and they have missles. Figure it
>out.

A couple of US carrier strike groups will take care of that soon enough. That's give us
time to deploy the other nine and our several dozen attack submarines to wreak havoc on
China's harbors and military infrastructure.

>> Not if it's all blown to rubble.
>
>There is no need or motive for anyone to "blow it to rubble".

What need was there for the Russians to blow Bahkmut to rubble? In war, rubble happens.

>Even if it was "blown to rubble", you would be wrong. It would still
>be worth having. Things can be rebuilt. Look what's happened in
>China in only the last 20 years.

So you want CHINA, an adversary, competing with us on the world stage, to be the source of
75% of the world's microchips? Chips that run your phone, your car, your computer, your
job, your power supply, your traffic lights?

You want China to control all that?

>> Sounds like a personal problem to me.
>
>Idiot.

You're the idiot who wants to hand our lives over to the Red Chinese.

>Just keep whistling Dixie, while China prepares for war. "They
>wouldn't *dare* blockade Taiwan!"
>
>Your response will be deleted, unread.

Because you'll be running away from me as fast as you can go?

Swill