Boeing Challeges Congress
 

Republicans, vowing to block a deal that could effect thousands of US jobs.


http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/compa...cid=spartandhp

Interesting situation..............

If Trump comes out in favor of the deal on a jobs basis, Congressional Republicans won't know whether to shit or go blind. Should be fun to watch.

I hope he does. I see no reason at all to block this.

Boeing says this deal means 100K jobs (whether true or not, I don't know), and you can rest assured that this will be emphasized. If we don't sell them the airliners, Airbus certainly will and what is to be gained by such a decision other than making GOP Congresscritters feel rough and tough?

From the article it looks like this is for 109 planes.

That's almost 1,000 Rosie the Riveters per plane.

What the fuck are they gonna build?

Battlestar Galacticas?

There's a lot more to designing, testing and building a modern plane that riveting. That said, I'm sure the 100K figure is just thrown out there to a make a point, whether true or not. You should know about this tactic considering your fondness for Trump.

Exactly my point. Have to keep an eye on this one.

It's only a matter of time before Trump and the GOP Congress go at each other tooth and nail, whether on this issue or another. Should be great theater.

This one will be worth watching closely especially the financing of the $17 Billion.
If only Trump can figure out a way to claim credit for making this deal...............

That'll really freak out the anti-Iran deal hawks.

Maybe Boeing will give the Cheetolini a 10% discount on Hair Force One?

There's no figuring involved. He just does it.

Well, now that we're a country that makes deals with state-sponsors of terrorism, let's go all in and sell them some 737's and 777's. Why not?

Reagan sold them missiles. Why shouldn't we sell them passenger jets?

Well, that was St. Ronnie, pilgrim! Don't you know you there is a separate standard for anyone who promises cheap bastards a tax cut? :rolleyes:

Great. A bit of historical revisionism thrown in to the thread. Nice job.

Educate yourself, Mike before exposing your ignorance. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E...3Contra_affair

You can thank me later.

You stepped in shit there Whelly.

The Ministry of Truth hasn't gotten around to scrubbing the Iran-Contra scandal yet.

From your link (did you even read it first)?

To this day, Reagan's role in the transactions is not definitively known; it is unclear exactly what Reagan knew and when, and whether the arms sales were motivated by his desire to save the U.S. hostages.

So yes, thank you for that link.

That particular bit of wikipedia text is a non-footnoted conclusion. It therefore does not meet wikipedia's encyclopedia standards for support, and is completely non-authoritative. It's a very thin reed to base a claim of Reagan's innocence, especially considering the footnoted facts that immediately follow in the wikipedia article:

Based on the above, the answer to the question 'What did Reagan know?' is 'Plenty.' And the answer to 'When did he know it?' is 'As it happened.'

I wouldn't be so sure. Republicans have an uncanny way of "falling in line" no matter how contentious or repulsive the issue.

See my post on 'coordination.' Republican coordination appears to have been immediate and nearly absolute.

horrifyingly so......

BS. It ties to footnote 83.

BS. The answer to the question "What did Don find that the Tower Commission invsetigation didn't?" is "More of nothing."

Bs. Bs.

BTW, why does your machine let you post BS, all caps, at the beginning of a sentence, while mine doesn't?

Reagan maintained plausible deniability with regard to Iran-Contra despite the fact that 14 people around him were charged with crimes for implementing his directive to his NSA, Robert McFarlane, to "to do whatever you have to do to help these people (the Contras) keep body and soul together," despite the Boland Amendment specifically prohibiting it.

Your choice to deny Reagan's complicity (either by directing action or by deliberately maintaining plausible deniability of the illegal activities of large numbers of his close staff) can only be attributed to a desire to maintain the conservative hagiography surrounding Reagan. When fourteen people around the President are charged with crimes in this affair, I prefer to go with the notion that the buck stops with the President. YMMV.

Do you have auto-correct on? Mine always gives me issues when I try to type "cc" at the end of a letter. It wants "Cc"