Re: The Bigger, Badder, Even More Serious Thread

[halfwise]

Good question. Wifi frequencies are several times higher than cell phone, and I know tin foil can be used to reflect wifi, which means it can block it. Probably applies to cell phone as well with one caveat: cell phone signals are about 35-40 cm wavelength, so will sort of wash around things much smaller than that (your body blocks ripples, but not ocean waves). I would imagine that because your hat is like a cup the bigger waves would sort of wash over it and fill it up. But that's working off my intuition; I'm not too sure on this.

[chris63]

Problem solved.

[halfwise]

I like it! But she's missing the tinfoil hat. Do all models wear a scowl because their clothes are too tight or what?

[Pettytyrant101]

{{Sadly seems Dave you are indeed in the firing line here- going on the list of products China is increasing tariffs on coming in at no15- is Dried Cranberries }}}

[David H]

Yeah... ups and downs are just a part of farming and everybody's got a few extra holes punched in their belts for the lean years, but in this case the 'down' is totally artificial and completely unnecessary. {{{which is about as crabbit as Scadinavian-American farmer can get without discussing manure }}}

[David H]

{{{ going on the list of products China is increasing tariffs on coming in at no15- is Dried Cranberries  }}}

Hey Petty, have you still got a link for that? I'm getting mixed messages on this.

[Pettytyrant101]

https://www.foxbusiness.com/features/china-tariffs-heres-a-list-of-the-us-products-that-could-be-threatened

{{Ignore the vid- nothing to do with it- its in the main article below for the product list, but this being the relevant bit-}}

'While the effective start date for the new charges will be revealed at a later time, according to China’s Ministry of Commerce, the tariffs are designed to target up to $50 billion of U.S. products annually.

Here is list of the top 30 U.S. products that China is targeting.

Soybeans
Corn
Corn flour
Pork
Certain fruits, including apples
Uncombed cotton, cotton linters
Aluminum straps
Sorghum
Brewing or distilling dregs and waste
Other durum wheat
Wheat and mixed wheat
Whole and half head fresh and cold beef
Fresh and cold beef with bones
Fresh and cold boneless beef
Dried cranberries
Frozen orange juice
Non-frozen orange juice
Whiskey
Types of tobacco, including cigars and cigarettes
SUVs with discharge capacity of 2.5L to 3L
Vehicles with discharge capacity of 1.5L to 2L
Passenger cars with discharge capacity 1.5L to 2L, 9 seats or less
Off-road vehicles with discharge capacity of 2L to 2.5L
Other gasoline trucks of less than five tons
Liquefied propane
Acrylonitrile
Other polyesters
Certain lubricants
Aircraft with an empty weight of more than 15,000kg but not exceeding 45,000kg
Certain plastics.'

[David H]

Thanks!

could-be-threatened

I like that. It leaves room for some hope!
There are other lists out there that aren't as specific, and I know there are people trying to reach agreements behind the scenes, so just have to watch it play out... I was talking to some cherry growers recently and they're in the same mess. Nobody knows what going on.

There are a lot of people saying our President must have slept through the "Ferris Beuller" lecture on trade wars.

[Pettytyrant101]

{{Oddly the headline says 'could' but the bit before the list says 'is' and there are some oddly specific things particularly to do with cars and planes regards class and size effected for a random list of stuff the journalist dreamed up- it seems based on something and the article implies without actually saying its from the Chinese Commerce people. This is why a lot of modern journalism sucks- you cant both sate a possibility and the possibility as a fact in the same article, provide a seemingly comprehensive list of goods effected and yet attribute no direct source to said list in order to verify it. Its sloppy and unnecessarily makes uncertain what the articles job should be to make clear! }}

[Pettytyrant101]

[azriel]

LMAO !!!     Thank you Petty !!!!

I prostrate myself at the feet of this guy, he cracks me up & the funniest thing about it all is.....He's right !!!

[Mrs Figg]

I noticed he is steadily getting angrier and angrier in every video.   don't blame him those Tories are utter barstools.

[Mrs Figg]

whoooooooh PIE IS ON FIIIIIIRE!! he really is getting angrier and angrier. quite right too.   he is great.

[Pettytyrant101]

{{Id like to see his live show   }}

[Pettytyrant101]

{{Now Wills and Kate have a third child does that mean we the tax payer will not subsidies that child or give it a single penny? I mean given that's the rules laid down by the Tories for everyone else (ie all the tax payers) 2 kids, after that if you have more no child support or any benefits (unless you have a third by non-consenting sex- all you have to do is prove to the dole you were raped and re-live that terrible experience to some bureaucratic in your local dole office- and yeah I'm not making that up sadly, been duped the 'rape clause').
Odd how when the extremely filthy rich have a third child its entire life can be funded by the tax payer and thats good for Britain- but when a normal working person has three kids they are scrounging, not taking responsibility and damaging Britain! }}

[Mrs Figg]

I personally believe that the 'rape clause' is a breach of basic human rights and should be challenged by the courts (all of them) because the poor woman has to write the name of the child on the form. Surely this is a terrible betrayal of the child's privacy? it is basically tarring it from birth as a product of rape. How evil is that. I fucking hate the Tories more each day, they are scum.

[Pettytyrant101]

[halfwise]

But you can see where this clause came from in reasonable steps.

1. The program wants to support children, but not encourage multiple children for multiple benefits.
2. People shouldn't be penalized for the noble decision to carry a child of rape to term, and neither should the child.
3. Hence if they can demonstrate they have a child of rape, they shouldn't be penalized if it brings them above the 2-child threshold.

Unfortunately when it comes to human beings logic isn't always applicable.

[Pettytyrant101]

. The program wants to support children, but not encourage multiple children for multiple benefits.- Halfy


{{Problem with this is its based on a presumption that people on benefits have lots of children without regard to the fact of if they can afford them or not- when actuality most families with multiple children who claim benefits are from families were they had the means to raise the family fine till something happened- redundancies, a death ect which left them suddenly in a position of not being able to afford to cloth and feed their family any more- at which point benefits would step in to help till they got back on their feet, at least in the past.
The rule the tories brought in capping it at 2 is based on the pernicious and nasty idea that the working poor breed like rats without responsibility and should be punished for it or deterred from doing so. When what they are actually doing is saving money by cutting benefits to families who suddenly, and usually of no fault of their own, find themselves struggling and in difficulties.

'Hence if they can demonstrate they have a child of rape'

And therein lies the problem- its difficult enough for many women to recount the events to trained police and councilors- here they are expected to do so to some spotty teen working a job centre to satisfy a bureaucrat- and worse if you live in a small town chances you know, at least to see, the person you have to divulge this too. }}}

[Mrs Figg]

When Esther McVile says 'its a good thing for women' then you know its a really really bad thing.

[Pettytyrant101]

{{She got a very rough ride off the Scottish Parliament Social Affairs Committee recently when she had to justify all this in person }}

[Pettytyrant101]

{{ I was reading the controversy over the character of Apu in the Simpsons- in short he's a racial stereotype and we wont be having with that sort of thing any more, especially not if its funny!

But it got me thinking why single out Apu? The Simpsons racially stereotypes all races (including Americans) for laughs, let us take a perfect example, Groundskeeper Willie-




It does beg the question of just what sort of twisted person would think that portraying all modern day Scots as violent, alcoholic, nationalistic, crabbit, belligerent, haggis chomping kilt wearers with a silly accent for comedy purposes is acceptable! 

In fact now I think about it it's making me exceptionally crabbit, so much so my kilt is all a twizzle and I've spilled my buckie! And you know what that means- some bastards getting claimed!! Right who spilled ma buckie? Oh it was me wis it? Right its malky time Petty!!!   owwww! ouch! bugger! What was I saying again?    }}}

[Pettytyrant101]

{{Been keeping an eye on the N Korea/S Korea summit.
Now for some time its seemed clear to me that the big orchestrator here is China. The US and Trump are just movable pieces on their board. The question of course is what are they playing for?
Well for some time China has had a duel  interconnected aim- to open up more and so gain greater influence in all spheres-economic, social and political. But N Korea has been getting in the way of that, but they cant abandon N Korea as that would have given influence over to the South and to the US.

So how to solve the N Korea issue if you are China?- well Trump rhetoric and name calling provided the excuse for the current show.
Out of the stuff agreed today between the two sides is the clincher, the first open move on the board as it were-

'To push for four-way talks involving the US and China'- BBC News

Now I remember Trump saying he would meet with Kim Jong-un, but not with China siting in on the negotiations.
This is a great play by China- if they play it right they will end up in the position where a peace agreement can be signed between North and South, starting the normalisation of relations for N Korea removing that problem for China, and I'll bet my buckie supply a key part of the deal will be a reduction in US military and military activity in the region- which the US will not want to agree too.
But by then it can easily be portrayed as peace is there for the taking and the only stumbling block to peace is America.
Its a lose/lose end game for the US in terms of presence in the region. Peace would be bad for strategic business.
Trump totally left himself open to this with his tweets and name calling- I dont see how this works out well for the US -
scenario 1- peace between north and south loss of US influence increase in Chinese influence.
Scenario 2- the US blocks the peace treaty as the terms are not acceptable to them making them look like the bad guys.
Scenario 3- the talks fall through completely and we return to the previous situation of name calling and threats of violence and Trump the great negotiator looks like he failed to be a great negotiator.

I dont see the scenario where this ends in a US win no matter how it goes. }}}

[halfwise]

Kim would love nothing better than to rub USA noses in the dirt, Trump or otherwise.

[Ringdrotten]