(02-20-2026 09:31 PM)andybible1995 Wrote:  

(02-20-2026 01:11 PM)ballantyneapp Wrote:  

(02-20-2026 10:51 AM)andybible1995 Wrote:  A high stock market number does not equal a healthy economy.

Nor does a high stock market absolve anyone of criminal activity

What does what you just said have to do with anything, balls?

That's rhetorical, right? You and I both know it has nothing at all to do with the topic at hand. The conversation isn't going quite the way the tools here thought it would, so someone had to come along and start trying to deflect. Who better than ballgag? Thomas the Talking Twit couldn't very well deflect from his own thread, right?

(02-20-2026 09:51 PM)banker Wrote:  

(02-20-2026 08:24 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(02-20-2026 04:32 PM)banker Wrote:  

(02-20-2026 03:26 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(02-20-2026 03:15 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  We just spent 4 years of a terrible economy under the Biden Administration with a booming stock market.

Personally the stock market is overdue for a correction.

Commercial real estate is also a bubble that needs to burst.

There's no metric that indicated at all that the economy under the Biden administration was "terrible."

Well, if your ignore:

Inflation
Wage growth
Trade deficit
Non government employment growth for US citizens
Interest rates
Home prices
Etc.

You’re right.

Home prices shot up 70% in my neck of the woods under Biden until the drop starting with about a year left in his term. That was a great turn of events for people who owned. Fantasitic in fact.

And it pushed the age of the average first time home buyer over 40. Self interest and national good often conflict.

Something needs to happen, and quick, to turn the American dream of homeownership back into a reality before we lose this upcoming generation to the commies. My son informed me yesterday that Gen Z hates the GOP. That was in direct conflict with what my Gen Z grandson told me a short 3-4 months ago. According to him, he and all of his friends hate the democrats. But they are 21-22 year olds whose prefrontal cortex still hasn't fully formed; they could change their minds later today.

My son reminds me of some users on this board who fence-sit until there's no risk in falling on one side or the other. He makes damn good money as a sales engineer for a major tech company—he sometimes forgets that his old man was the one who got him started in the data world to begin with, but that's another story. Not that he didn't put in the work to get where he is; he did, but he had a bit of a leg up—so apparently he isn't faced with the difficulties that many men his age are facing. Apparently his attitude is "my life is great; what's the problem?" I guess it's understandable. I was likely the same way when I was his age and the world was mine.

(02-21-2026 06:22 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(02-21-2026 03:53 AM)TripleA Wrote:  We'll see. At the END of all the legal wrangling.

Tanq, you are wrong so often in the end, that I never take your word for anything.

My thought is that the retailers made themselves whole in many cases. If they did, they have no argument.

In the end, it's no skin off my nose.

As the flow goes, the retailers may or may not have made themselves whole. Regardless, they are the pay or of record of an illegally implemented tax, meaning the government has zero legal right to hold them. And legally, the only one the govt has any legal obligation to in that case is the payor,


And yes, the retailers may be whole. But they are the only party with a clear unambiguous claim to monies. Introducing some cover as a third party trade agreement doesnt change that. I agree that that seems a wrong outcome in a moral sense, as you note. However, I’m not going to invoke some fictional made up nonsense to get to the conclusion I would rather see.

As for your churlish aside, Sorry to get your thin skin riled by that, champ. But leave it to you to have to rely on some sort of immature and churlish name calling as part of your response to a very flat statement. You be you, bud. End of tanq admitted churlish and somewhat unnecessary aside

Your middle name should be churlish. I just backspaced through the rest of this post so as not to be too offensive, but there's a man in your mirror who wants your attention.

(02-21-2026 08:05 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(02-21-2026 06:22 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(02-21-2026 03:53 AM)TripleA Wrote:  We'll see. At the END of all the legal wrangling.

Tanq, you are wrong so often in the end, that I never take your word for anything.

My thought is that the retailers made themselves whole in many cases. If they did, they have no argument.

In the end, it's no skin off my nose.

As the flow goes, the retailers may or may not have made themselves whole. Regardless, they are the pay or of record of an illegally implemented tax, meaning the government has zero legal right to hold them. And legally, the only one the govt has any legal obligation to in that case is the payor,


And yes, the retailers may be whole. But they are the only party with a clear unambiguous claim to monies. Introducing some cover as a third party trade agreement doesnt change that. I agree that that seems a wrong outcome in a moral sense, as you note. However, I’m not going to invoke some fictional made up nonsense to get to the conclusion I would rather see.

As for your churlish aside, Sorry to get your thin skin riled by that, champ. But leave it to you to have to rely on some sort of immature and churlish name calling as part of your response to a very flat statement. You be you, bud. End of tanq admitted churlish and somewhat unnecessary aside

Your middle name should be churlish. I just backspaced through the rest of this post so as not to be too offensive, but there's a man in your mirror who wants your attention.

Funny, I self admitted my own churlishness—- again in light of that tossed my way.

I guess actually admitting it doesnt meet your ‘man in the mirror’ test you breathlessly chastise above.

And I’d suggest pointing your snide asides at others as well. I’ve told you, and others, I feel zero guilt in responding in kind to the tone that Im delivered. And I’d suggest that, in the same tone you exhibit, you should look in the mirror and apply your comments to others as well. Which unlike my own self admission, you don’t seem to do. And I have also backspaced to cut out some of this response. Glad we are on at least maybe an eighth of the same page.

Have a great day.

And thank you for that very obvious one-sided lecture. I’d say the previous sentence says a lot about the subject.

(02-21-2026 08:20 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(02-21-2026 08:05 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(02-21-2026 06:22 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(02-21-2026 03:53 AM)TripleA Wrote:  We'll see. At the END of all the legal wrangling.

Tanq, you are wrong so often in the end, that I never take your word for anything.

My thought is that the retailers made themselves whole in many cases. If they did, they have no argument.

In the end, it's no skin off my nose.

As the flow goes, the retailers may or may not have made themselves whole. Regardless, they are the pay or of record of an illegally implemented tax, meaning the government has zero legal right to hold them. And legally, the only one the govt has any legal obligation to in that case is the payor,


And yes, the retailers may be whole. But they are the only party with a clear unambiguous claim to monies. Introducing some cover as a third party trade agreement doesnt change that. I agree that that seems a wrong outcome in a moral sense, as you note. However, I’m not going to invoke some fictional made up nonsense to get to the conclusion I would rather see.

As for your churlish aside, Sorry to get your thin skin riled by that, champ. But leave it to you to have to rely on some sort of immature and churlish name calling as part of your response to a very flat statement. You be you, bud. End of tanq admitted churlish and somewhat unnecessary aside

Your middle name should be churlish. I just backspaced through the rest of this post so as not to be too offensive, but there's a man in your mirror who wants your attention.

Funny, I self admitted my own churlishness—- again in light of that tossed my way.

I guess actually admitting it doesnt meet your ‘man in the mirror’ test you breathlessly chastise above.

And I’d suggest pointing your snide asides at others as well. I’ve told you, and others, I feel zero guilt in responding in kind to the tone that Im delivered. And I’d suggest that, in the same tone you exhibit, you should look in the mirror and apply your comments to others as well. Which unlike my own self admission, you don’t seem to do. And I have also backspaced to cut out some of this response. Glad we are on at least maybe an eighth of the same page.

Have a great day.

Yeah, I saw it; it didn't strike me as sincere, but I admit I could be wrong. And point out what is wrong with my tone. I wasn't snide, I wasn't rude, and I didn't use any belittling language. Or did me saying that churlish should be your middle name offend you? I hope not, if so you are far too easy to offend. I merely stated my opinion about your approach to everything here. I bet you don't comport yourself like this in your personal or professional life.

I aint mad at ya bro. If you think about it, I'm acting as a buffer between you and the others here who are constantly on your ass. Seriously, when was the last time I attacked you? I don't hold the same degree of animus toward you as some here, but that doesn't mean I agree with much, if anything, that you opine. And that's fine. I don't have a problem agreeing to disagree with almost anyone.

For what it's worth, I do respect your experience with the law even if I often disagree with your opinions. When you state legal facts, I am in no position to argue. I leave that to the other lawyers here.

Have a good day, sir.

(02-21-2026 08:37 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(02-21-2026 08:20 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(02-21-2026 08:05 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(02-21-2026 06:22 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(02-21-2026 03:53 AM)TripleA Wrote:  We'll see. At the END of all the legal wrangling.

Tanq, you are wrong so often in the end, that I never take your word for anything.

My thought is that the retailers made themselves whole in many cases. If they did, they have no argument.

In the end, it's no skin off my nose.

As the flow goes, the retailers may or may not have made themselves whole. Regardless, they are the pay or of record of an illegally implemented tax, meaning the government has zero legal right to hold them. And legally, the only one the govt has any legal obligation to in that case is the payor,


And yes, the retailers may be whole. But they are the only party with a clear unambiguous claim to monies. Introducing some cover as a third party trade agreement doesnt change that. I agree that that seems a wrong outcome in a moral sense, as you note. However, I’m not going to invoke some fictional made up nonsense to get to the conclusion I would rather see.

As for your churlish aside, Sorry to get your thin skin riled by that, champ. But leave it to you to have to rely on some sort of immature and churlish name calling as part of your response to a very flat statement. You be you, bud. End of tanq admitted churlish and somewhat unnecessary aside

Your middle name should be churlish. I just backspaced through the rest of this post so as not to be too offensive, but there's a man in your mirror who wants your attention.

Funny, I self admitted my own churlishness—- again in light of that tossed my way.

I guess actually admitting it doesnt meet your ‘man in the mirror’ test you breathlessly chastise above.

And I’d suggest pointing your snide asides at others as well. I’ve told you, and others, I feel zero guilt in responding in kind to the tone that Im delivered. And I’d suggest that, in the same tone you exhibit, you should look in the mirror and apply your comments to others as well. Which unlike my own self admission, you don’t seem to do. And I have also backspaced to cut out some of this response. Glad we are on at least maybe an eighth of the same page.

Have a great day.

Yeah, I saw it; it didn't strike me as sincere, I admit I could be wrong. And point out what is wrong with my tone. I wasn't snide, I wasn't rude, and I didn't use any belittling language. Or did me saying that churlish should be your middle name offend you? I hope not, if so you are far to easy to offend. I merely stated my opinion on your approach to all things here. I bet you don't comport yourself like this in your personal or professional life.

I aint mad at ya bro. If you think about it, I'm acting as a buffer between you and the others here who are constantly on your ass. Seriously, when was the last time I attacked you? I don't hold the same degree of animus toward you as some here, but that doesn't mean I agree with much, if anything, that you opine. And that's fine. I don't have a problem agreeing to disagree with almost anyone.

For what it's worth, I do respect your experience with the law even if I often disagree with your opinions. When you state legal facts, I am in no position to argue. I leave that to the other lawyers here.

Have a good day, sir.

Appreciate your comment. As you have experienced, Im more than able, and happy, to engage civilly.

And when a ******* makes a side comment, I have zero problem engaging in that manner as well.

A whole slew of people around here act in the manner that a discourse has to include a slight, or simply a ****** offside to engage with a different opinion.

And the analogy that you bring up that I don’t treat people here the same I treat them in RL is absolutely true. Another difference there isn’t the pure ****** comments that seem to the underlying basis that they think passes for substance.

Tbh, you and I used to clash in that manner like true mfers. And probably through the intervention of stink, we both threw up a ceasefire. That I both appreciate, and hold a lot of respect for you for.

And you are correct, there is probably a world of difference in our viewpoints. And like you, I don’t attack you. And conversely and in equal regard, you really don’t attack me personally. We have learned between us that neither of us needs to rely on the churlishness and nastiness that, at one time, we did engage in. We have *bith* decided to keep it in our own pants, in a manner of speaking. And I’m more than happy to engage with others in that same manner.

And when that is not extended, I may return that animus extended. Yes, I was churlish in my reply to AAA. And readily admitted it, in order to point it out. I would again suggest that the lecture extended to me might perhaps be aimed elsewhere as well.

The best to you.

(02-21-2026 08:54 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(02-21-2026 08:37 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(02-21-2026 08:20 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(02-21-2026 08:05 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(02-21-2026 06:22 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  As the flow goes, the retailers may or may not have made themselves whole. Regardless, they are the pay or of record of an illegally implemented tax, meaning the government has zero legal right to hold them. And legally, the only one the govt has any legal obligation to in that case is the payor,


And yes, the retailers may be whole. But they are the only party with a clear unambiguous claim to monies. Introducing some cover as a third party trade agreement doesnt change that. I agree that that seems a wrong outcome in a moral sense, as you note. However, I’m not going to invoke some fictional made up nonsense to get to the conclusion I would rather see.

As for your churlish aside, Sorry to get your thin skin riled by that, champ. But leave it to you to have to rely on some sort of immature and churlish name calling as part of your response to a very flat statement. You be you, bud. End of tanq admitted churlish and somewhat unnecessary aside

Your middle name should be churlish. I just backspaced through the rest of this post so as not to be too offensive, but there's a man in your mirror who wants your attention.

Funny, I self admitted my own churlishness—- again in light of that tossed my way.

I guess actually admitting it doesnt meet your ‘man in the mirror’ test you breathlessly chastise above.

And I’d suggest pointing your snide asides at others as well. I’ve told you, and others, I feel zero guilt in responding in kind to the tone that Im delivered. And I’d suggest that, in the same tone you exhibit, you should look in the mirror and apply your comments to others as well. Which unlike my own self admission, you don’t seem to do. And I have also backspaced to cut out some of this response. Glad we are on at least maybe an eighth of the same page.

Have a great day.

Yeah, I saw it; it didn't strike me as sincere, I admit I could be wrong. And point out what is wrong with my tone. I wasn't snide, I wasn't rude, and I didn't use any belittling language. Or did me saying that churlish should be your middle name offend you? I hope not, if so you are far to easy to offend. I merely stated my opinion on your approach to all things here. I bet you don't comport yourself like this in your personal or professional life.

I aint mad at ya bro. If you think about it, I'm acting as a buffer between you and the others here who are constantly on your ass. Seriously, when was the last time I attacked you? I don't hold the same degree of animus toward you as some here, but that doesn't mean I agree with much, if anything, that you opine. And that's fine. I don't have a problem agreeing to disagree with almost anyone.

For what it's worth, I do respect your experience with the law even if I often disagree with your opinions. When you state legal facts, I am in no position to argue. I leave that to the other lawyers here.

Have a good day, sir.

Appreciate your comment. As you have experienced, Im more than able, and happy, to engage civilly.

And when a ******* makes a side comment, I have zero problem engaging in that manner as well.

A whole slew of people around here act in the manner that a discourse has to include a slight, or simply a ****** offside to engage with a different opinion.

And the analogy that you bring up that I don’t treat people here the same I treat them in RL is absolutely true. Another difference there isn’t the pure ****** comments that seem to the underlying basis that they think passes for substance.

Tbh, you and I used to clash in that manner like true mfers. And probably through the intervention of stink, we both threw up a ceasefire. That I both appreciate, and hold a lot of respect for you for.

And you are correct, there is probably a world of difference in our viewpoints. And like you, I don’t attack you. And conversely and in equal regard, you really don’t attack me personally. We have learned between us that neither of us needs to rely on the churlishness and nastiness that, at one time, we did engage in. We have *bith* decided to keep it in our own pants, in a manner of speaking. And I’m more than happy to engage with others in that same manner.

And when that is not extended, I may return that animus extended. Yes, I was churlish in my reply to AAA. And readily admitted it, in order to point it out. I would again suggest that the lecture extended to me might perhaps be aimed elsewhere as well.

The best to you.

(02-20-2026 10:30 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(02-20-2026 10:27 PM)TripleA Wrote:  Won't be any tariff refunds. Those are trade agreements between nations. And new tariffs will be instituted under a different law.

Importers who paid an illegal tax will sue for refunds.

They should sanction us

Gitinahole is gonna sue Trump.

(02-21-2026 04:40 PM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  Gitinahole is gonna sue Trump.

So would balls, Tanq, and Tom.

Heck, Tanq would represent all 3 of them.

(02-21-2026 04:46 PM)andybible1995 Wrote:  

(02-21-2026 04:40 PM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  Gitinahole is gonna sue Trump.

So would balls, Tanq, and Tom.

Heck, Tanq would represent all 3 of them.

They would end up getting 5 to 10 years.

For whatever it's worth, I'd like to give props to both Tanq and TigerBlue4Ever. They both stood firm with their points in this thread, defended themselves, yet showed some respect for the other. Seemed like a civil exchange.

We need more of that on this board when folks of different socio-political views debate. State your case, be respectful yet firm, be open to perhaps seeing things differently and be glad there are those unlike yourself posting (as that makes the board more enjoyable than if, hypothetically, every poster shared every opinion).

I would enjoy having a few beers and a discussion about various topics with Tanq and TB4E.

I would also enjoy having a few beers with TB4E.

I would pour tanq's beer on the floor so he'd have to lick it up.

And he brought that on himself, btw.

(02-21-2026 06:02 PM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  I would also enjoy having a few beers with TB4E.

I would pour tanq's beer on the floor so he'd have to lick it up.

And he brought that on himself, btw.

If Tanq's beer was a high-dollar and hard-to-find cream ale or kolsch on tap ... the craft beer-loving Bill Dazzle would be aghast and distraught, perhaps even moved to tears.

Wasting fine beer (or even bad beer, for that matter) is sinful.

Maybe a better option would be for you to take Tanq's beer from him, hand it to me so that I can enjoy it ... and then you can dump some beer nuts or popcorn on Tanq's head.

(02-21-2026 05:49 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  For whatever it's worth, I'd like to give props to both Tanq and TigerBlue4Ever. They both stood firm with their points in this thread, defended themselves, yet showed some respect for the other. Seemed like a civil exchange.

We need more of that on this board when folks of different socio-political views debate. State your case, be respectful yet firm, be open to perhaps seeing things differently and be glad there are those unlike yourself posting (as that makes the board more enjoyable than if, hypothetically, every poster shared every opinion).

I would enjoy having a few beers and a discussion about various topics with Tanq and TB4E.

You seem to be a little New around here.

Billy Dee, there is a long history of antagonism between Tanq and a section of this board he labels as "howler monkeys."

Translation: The people on here who dare to disagree with him, although his version is that all of them mistreated him and forced him to react in kind.

It's all our fault, and none is his.

(02-21-2026 06:24 PM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  

(02-21-2026 05:49 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  For whatever it's worth, I'd like to give props to both Tanq and TigerBlue4Ever. They both stood firm with their points in this thread, defended themselves, yet showed some respect for the other. Seemed like a civil exchange.

We need more of that on this board when folks of different socio-political views debate. State your case, be respectful yet firm, be open to perhaps seeing things differently and be glad there are those unlike yourself posting (as that makes the board more enjoyable than if, hypothetically, every poster shared every opinion).

I would enjoy having a few beers and a discussion about various topics with Tanq and TB4E.

You seem to be a little New around here.

I've read enough Tanq posts to know there are aspects of his posting style and his politics I find appealing and, in contrast, some elements of his posting style and his politics with which I disagree.

I could say the same thing about other posters on this board who lean left — and many posters on this board who lean right, for that matter.

You're not allowed to disagree with us bill.

(02-21-2026 08:34 PM)TripleA Wrote:  Billy Dee, there is a long history of antagonism between Tanq and a section of this board he labels as "howler monkeys."

Translation: The people on here who dare to disagree with him, although his version is that all of them mistreated him and forced him to react in kind.

It's all our fault, and none is his.

Tanq is a leftist who is posting on a board that is overwhelming right-leaning. Many of the conservative posters might dislike Tanq (and left-leaning Tom, ballyntyne, Elvis, etc.) even if, hypothetically, he donated a kidney to save the life of one of their relatives. Some people on both the left and right hate the "enemy" and have no desire for reasonable and respectful discussion.

Reverse the situation. Hypothetically, let's say there is a board that strongly leans left and on which some of the progressive posters call the right-leaning posters "MAGA filth" and all other manner of nastiness. In this case, the conservative poster has to work extra hard to posit his position and to be heard — while also requiring a strong stomach, as he knows he is going to be slammed by many on the left.

Have Tanq, Tom and other lefties trolled and antagonized? Of course (I've done a bit of that too and wish I had not as I look back). Many conservatives on the board strongly argue Tanq and Tom are simply trolls — and unintelligent/clueless/foolish trolls at that.

But I also feel Tanq and Tom (and some of the other leftists) add to the overall discourse. Similarly, most of the conservatives on this board bring positive contributions (though there seemingly are some crusty old farts who likely lead sad lives and attempt to make themselves happy by hating on the libtards; those hard-asses basically post nothing but vile and vulgar nonsense and garbage).

Bottom line: Which would you prefer, T-A. The board as currently exists, despite its flaws? Or a board with zero left-leaning posters?

(02-22-2026 10:11 AM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  You're not allowed to disagree with us bill.

This actually made me chuckle, BTF.

Well played, good sir.