Deplorable Posted January 3, 2017 Share Posted January 3, 2017 http://money.cnn.com/2017/01/03/news/economy/ford-700-jobs-trump/index.html Ford cancels Mexico plant. Will create 700 U.S. jobs in 'vote of confidence' in Trump Ford is canceling plans to build a new plant in Mexico. It will invest $700 million in Michigan instead, creating 700 new U.S. jobs. Ford (F) CEO Mark Fields said the investment is a "vote of confidence" in the pro-business environment president-elect Donald Trump is creating. However, he stressed Ford did not do any sort of special deal with Trump. "We didn't cut a deal with Trump. We did it for our business," Fields told CNN's Poppy Harlow in an exclusive interview Tuesday. He said Ford did speak with Trump and vice-president elect Mike Pence this morning. The news is a major U-turn for Ford. Last year, the company announced it would invest $1.6 billion in Mexico to transfer the production of the Ford Focus from Michigan to Mexico to save costs. Now the Focus will be built at an existing plant in Hermosillo, Mexico, and Ford will expand its plant in Flat Rock. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bishop Briggs Posted January 3, 2017 Share Posted January 3, 2017 When is Barbra Streisand, as she promised, moving to Canada after Trump's victory? It's time Trump called on her, and the other celebrities (i.e. publicity-seeking nonentities) who made similar daft pledges, to get out. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shades75 Posted January 3, 2017 Share Posted January 3, 2017 23 minutes ago, Bishop Briggs said: When is Barbra Streisand, as she promised, moving to Canada after Trump's victory? It's time Trump called on her, and the other celebrities (i.e. publicity-seeking nonentities) who made similar daft pledges, to get out. Is that really important? For the POTUS to gloat? Might some start to think a little better of him if he was to do the exact opposite? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bishop Briggs Posted January 3, 2017 Share Posted January 3, 2017 8 minutes ago, Shades75 said: Is that really important? For the POTUS to gloat? Might some start to think a little better of him if he was to do the exact opposite? http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/obama-declares-national-day-of-gloating "President Obama declared what he called “a national day of gloating.” “It would not be productive for this nation, going forward, to crow about our victory over political adversaries,” he said in a nationally televised address. “So let’s get it all out of our systems today.” "Immediately after the President’s speech, loudspeakers outside the White House blasted “We Are the Champions,” and the national day of gloating began." 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shades75 Posted January 3, 2017 Share Posted January 3, 2017 2 minutes ago, Bishop Briggs said: http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/obama-declares-national-day-of-gloating "President Obama declared what he called “a national day of gloating.” “It would not be productive for this nation, going forward, to crow about our victory over political adversaries,” he said in a nationally televised address. “So let’s get it all out of our systems today.” "Immediately after the President’s speech, loudspeakers outside the White House blasted “We Are the Champions,” and the national day of gloating began." I don't like that either. It doesn't seem to single people and singular statements out though. That seems more confrontational to me. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted January 3, 2017 Share Posted January 3, 2017 2 minutes ago, Shades75 said: I don't like that either. It doesn't seem to single people and singular statements out though. That seems more confrontational to me. http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/kremlin-names-trump-employee-of-the-month 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peppino Impastato Posted January 3, 2017 Share Posted January 3, 2017 I'm pretty sure that's satire 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted January 3, 2017 Share Posted January 3, 2017 2 minutes ago, Peppino Impastato said: I'm pretty sure that's satire Shoosh you. -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shades75 Posted January 3, 2017 Share Posted January 3, 2017 1 minute ago, Peppino Impastato said: I'm pretty sure that's satire I'm embarrassed that I didn't think Bishop Briggs's first reply was! It probably seemed ludicrous when first printed, and now it somehow, doesn't! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
banana Posted January 3, 2017 Author Share Posted January 3, 2017 I'm hearing that Trump is odds on favourite to be the best shittalking troll in Oval Office history imo. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bishop Briggs Posted January 3, 2017 Share Posted January 3, 2017 11 minutes ago, Shades75 said: I don't like that either. It doesn't seem to single people and singular statements out though. That seems more confrontational to me. Whoooosh!! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shades75 Posted January 3, 2017 Share Posted January 3, 2017 2 minutes ago, Bishop Briggs said: Whoooosh!! My username was hacked.... ....honest. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bishop Briggs Posted January 3, 2017 Share Posted January 3, 2017 Just now, Shades75 said: My username was hacked.... ....honest. Of course. I was hoping that Welshbairn might bite but he spotted it. Anyway, Happy 2017! You should be back at the stadium of thrills later this year. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted January 3, 2017 Share Posted January 3, 2017 16 minutes ago, Shades75 said: I'm embarrassed that I didn't think Bishop Briggs's first reply was! It probably seemed ludicrous when first printed, and now it somehow, doesn't! I'm not sure the Bishop knew either. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shades75 Posted January 3, 2017 Share Posted January 3, 2017 3 minutes ago, Bishop Briggs said: Of course. I was hoping that Welshbairn might bite but he spotted it. Anyway, Happy 2017! You should be back at the stadium of thrills later this year. Aye, aw ra best n' that. Never count our chickens being a Hibby. An un-relenting tailspin is never far away! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arabdownunder Posted January 3, 2017 Share Posted January 3, 2017 Somewhat given away by the banner above the headline SATIRE FROM THE BOROWITZ REPORT 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bishop Briggs Posted January 4, 2017 Share Posted January 4, 2017 (edited) 6 hours ago, welshbairn said: I'm not sure the Bishop knew either. I certainly did. It's an amusing satire on David Horowitz, a leading neo-conservative writer and his Front Page Magazine -http://www.frontpagemag.com/. It was publishing far-right stuff long before Breitbart started. Like a lot of neo-conservatives, e.g. Irving Kristol and James Burnham, Horowitz started his political career on the far left. ETA - It would not be a surprise if Horowitz joined the Trump administration. Edited January 4, 2017 by Bishop Briggs 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bishop Briggs Posted January 4, 2017 Share Posted January 4, 2017 1 hour ago, Harambe Legion said: Burnham was not a neo-conservative. Burnham may not have been part of Irving Kristol's neoconservative faction but his policy views and intellectual background were similar. Like Kristol, James Burnham came from the Trotskyite Left. Like the neocons, he was a Machiavellian cold warrior. Some would argue that Burnham was a traditional conservative like Bill Buckley, his co-founder at National Review. Several leading far right conservatives, such as Sam Francis, were influenced by Burnham too. However, I still regard Burnham as the first neocon even though he embraced traditional conservatism in his later years. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bishop Briggs Posted January 4, 2017 Share Posted January 4, 2017 1 minute ago, Harambe Legion said: Just because he came from the left doesn't make him a neo-conservative. That would make Lasch a neo-conservative as well when he absolutely wasn't. Burnham was not a neo-con in the sense that Kristol was. In fact I would argue that Buckley was more of a neo-con than Burnham especially later on. I would not disagree. Buckley recanted his neocon foreign policy views in his later years. Your comments on Christopher Lasch, suggest that you are a paleo-conservative like Paul Gottfried or Clyde Wilson. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deplorable Posted January 4, 2017 Share Posted January 4, 2017 https://theintercept.com/2017/01/04/washpost-is-richly-rewarded-for-false-news-about-russia-threat-while-public-is-deceived/ 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.