-
[QUOTE=Member#2041;1999723]Who said anything about using a Mexican chica as a source for my political views? .[/QUOTE]So now you deny having the same political views as the chica? What a great dodge, 2041! It's sad that you have to Trump bash to get a great session. But I suppose you have to do something to overcome your hideous exterior.
-
[QUOTE=DCups;1999730]So now you deny having the same political views as the chica? What a great dodge, 2041! It's sad that you have to Trump bash to get a great session. But I suppose you have to do something to overcome your hideous exterior.[/QUOTE]Again, your reading comprehension shows you to be an idiot. I said that the chica was not the SOURCE of my views. I never said that she did not agree with my views. Do try to keep up. Oh, and so that the rest of us can avoid it, could you state what institute of higher learning gave someone with such limited reading comprehension skills a PhD?
And frankly if you don't grasp the fact that establishing an emotional and intellectual connection with a hooker is a well proven method toward getting great sessions rather than just good ones, you're even dumber on more levels than I had previously thought. Which is saying something.
-
[QUOTE=Member#2041;1999736]the chica was not the SOURCE of my views. .[/QUOTE]Oh, thanks for clarifying, 2041. Keep up with your meds, ok? We don't want to have to haul your 300 pound lard ass carcass back to the states.
-
[QUOTE=DCups;1999744]Oh, thanks for clarifying, 2041. Keep up with your meds, ok? We don't want to have to haul your 300 pound lard ass carcass back to the states.[/QUOTE]Try 180. I actually used to weigh 295. And I don't need Diabetes meds anymore. I got myself in shape starting 5 years ago. The Affordable Care Act did help to save my life, along with my own efforts. I either bicycle 30 miles a day, or swim 2 miles a day. EVERY DAY. I'm going to do a triathlon this year, and I'll be competitive in the 55 and over group. But thanks for the good thoughts. Gotta go, it's time for my ride.
-
That's great (seriously). Congratulations. See, I can play nice when others do. Obviously from your example, Obamacare did help some people.
[QUOTE=Member#2041;1999746]Try 180. I actually used to weigh 295. And I don't need Diabetes meds anymore. I got myself in shape starting 5 years ago. The Affordable Care Act did help to save my life, along with my own efforts. I either bicycle 30 miles a day, or swim 2 miles a day. EVERY DAY. I'm going to do a triathlon this year, and I'll be competitive in the 55 and over group. But thanks for the good thoughts. Gotta go, it's time for my ride.[/QUOTE].
-
[QUOTE=Member#2041;1999708]
In any case, I think you haven't a snowball's chance in hell of winning that bet, and I wish we could find a common geographic venue where I could collect on it.[/QUOTE]How about Macau or Zurich? LOL.
-
"Thursday, February 16, 2017.
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Thursday shows that 55% of Likely USA Voters approve of President Trump's job performance. Forty-five percent (45%) disapprove. The latest figures include 38% who Strongly Approve of the way Trump is performing and 36% who Strongly Disapprove. This gives him a Presidential Approval Index rating of +2. ".
I am not gloating, truly, just pointing out the outrageous refusal of the Left in America to accept the outcome of the election as a political strategy is obviously not working. Trump is currently doing better in the Rasmussen daily Tracking Poll than Obama did for most of the last 6 years of his presidency. Point: Trump is getting more popular not less. My suggestion to the anti Trumpers is relax, take a load off, have a cognac, accept for the moment what you can not change, and wait for something real to happen further down the pike that actually justifies some degree of anger and outrage before you become angry and outraged. Or not. Its up to you. It's just that nobody likes a sore loser.
-
[QUOTE=NattyBumpo;1999822]"Thursday, February 16, 2017.
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Thursday shows that 55% of Likely USA Voters approve of President Trump's job performance. Forty-five percent (45%) disapprove. The latest figures include 38% who Strongly Approve of the way Trump is performing and 36% who Strongly Disapprove. This gives him a Presidential Approval Index rating of +2. ".
I am not gloating, truly, just pointing out the outrageous refusal of the Left in America to accept the outcome of the election as a political strategy is obviously not working. Trump is currently doing better in the Rasmussen daily Tracking Poll than Obama did for most of the last 6 years of his presidency. Point: Trump is getting more popular not less. My suggestion to the anti Trumpers is relax, take a load off, have a cognac, accept for the moment what you can not change, and wait for something real to happen further down the pike that actually justifies some degree of anger and outrage before you become angry and outraged. Or not. Its up to you. It's just that nobody likes a sore loser.[/QUOTE]Rassmussen is the single most right-wing biased pollster out there. They had Mitt Romney beating Obama the day before the 2012 election. Their methodology is flawed because they only sample land lines, and miss all people who only use cell phones. Which means they severely under sample the young, latino, and black voters. Frankly, given their track record, and their broken obsolete methodology, it's amazing that they're still in business.
-
[QUOTE=NattyBumpo;1999797]How about Macau or Zurich? LOL.[/QUOTE]From San Diego, Macau is as far as anywhere else in Asia. And Zurich is hardly any better, not to mention not being a great location for inexpensive mongering.
-
Now that we have had adequate debates and some smacking and shaming of presidents and their followers, can we move on with some brilliant ideas and resolutions to the following issues?
I promise I will forward the best solutions to the Press and congress once we reach agreement here.
Items not necessary in any order of preference or priority.
1. Illegal immigration. Prevention and present ones in USA now.
2. Annual Federal budget deficit.
3. 20 trillion dollars in debt.
3. Replacing Obamacare and with what?
4. Vetting refugees.
I will stop here for now.
Answers please. No need moronic replies.
P.S. Acknowledging someone's input does not mean approval of it. Let's be civilized.
-
[QUOTE=Member#2041;1999873]From San Diego, Macau is as far as anywhere else in Asia. And Zurich is hardly any better, not to mention not being a great location for inexpensive mongering.[/QUOTE]Then it looks like you won't be able to win your bet with me. Ha Ha. I don't visit Central and South America anymore. I used to travel around there a lot in my early days, but I find the general atmosphere much more hospitable in SE Asia. The last time I went to Costa Rica was in '04. It really depressed me because so much has changed and not for the better since the 70's and early 80's when I loved the country. I like the Andean countries for their beauty and do not rule out another road trip someday. I have fond memories of Chile and Argentina as well, but again it is not very likely I will ever go back. I gather you did not get my attempt at humor when I suggested Macau or Zurich. You could have won twice as much money if you had accepted that bet. I like Macau a lot for its Saunas and Chinese girls. I occasionally fly into Zurich on my way to LOS, but I have never stopped off at a brothel there. From where I live, flying the European route is the shortest duration flight to Asia. I was thinking that on your money it might be fun to visit Globe.
[QUOTE=Member#2041;1999867]Rassmussen is the single most right-wing biased pollster out there. They had Mitt Romney beating Obama the day before the 2012 election. Their methodology is flawed because they only sample land lines, and miss all people who only use cell phones. Which means they severely under sample the young, latino, and black voters. Frankly, given their track record, and their broken obsolete methodology, it's amazing that they're still in business.[/QUOTE] You are correct that Rasmussen got 2012 wrong. So did I! LOL. I lost a little money betting on Romney. I really thought he would win, but he coasted on his lead the last 2 weeks of the campaign and he did not go in for the kill during the last debate on foreign policy and the Benghazi fuck up and cover up. Maybe he was looking at the Rasmussen poll. LOL. Then Sandy played right into Obama's lucky hand. You will probably disagree with this assessment too, but IMHO, if it had not been for Sandy and the photo ops of Obama acting all concerned and presidential with Christie just days before the election; Obama would have lost.
Regarding the 2016 final election polls, most pollsters got it wrong except IBD and LA Times. Rasmussen's poll was more accurate than most, however. You are certainly entitled not to believe Trump has gained in popularity since the election. No skin off my nose. I just made the point that the Democratic Party's decision to fight Trump on EVERYTHING big and small is not paying off. But like most disagreements on this thread, we shall see what we shall see.
Here is a link to the Real Clear Politics wrap up of final poll results for the 2016 election. Only IBD and LA Times predicted the correct winner, but they both goofed on the raw vote count. Rasmussen actually did pretty good with their final poll, although they got the winner wrong / they were very accurate on the raw vote count.
[URL]http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/president/[/URL]
-
[QUOTE=NattyBumpo;1999419]True, but how long do you predict the dollar can remain the world reserve currency. 10 years, 25 years more? The idea used to be unthinkable. Not any longer.[/QUOTE]Well nobody (here at least) wants the dollar to go bad, then we'd be trapped in the USA for the duration. To remain reserve currency, simply lose remaining compunctions (if there are any left) about killing foreigners, and keep finding suckers to serve in USA's armed forces.
-
[QUOTE=NattyBumpo;1999697]EihTooms, I am familiar with your alternative view of American history. Believe it or not I do have a couple left leaning friends. It is not always easy to stay above the fray with them. Ha Ha.[/QUOTE]And then follows zero challenge to my pointing out when and why Carter's Fed Chair appointee, Paul Volker, raised Fed Funds rates (the hyper-inflation was being driven by wage inflation; far more private sector jobs being created than there were applicants to take them. Of any economic problem to have and solve, the one you want is hyper-inflation due to wage inflation), when and why the Iranian Revolution occurred (nothing to do with Jimmy Carter), ordinary folks being able to greatly reduce the pain of those Carter year interest rates through tax deductions (taken away as an option by Reagan), or any of the other specific points I made.
Just ad hominem retorts like, "I am familiar with your alternative view of American history" and fact-free touchy-feely assessments like, "I lived through this stuff. The Carter years were horrible. Here is the relevant information: whereupon you inexplicably applied 1976's 7. 7% unemployment rate to Jimmy Carter instead of the Republican president who was in office throughout the entire year of 1976 (and for almost a full month after)..?
LOL. Ok, Natty. No, I think I will graciously decline getting involved in your strained foundation of a bet. But, by all means, keep on watching those Trump press conferences and feeling the Greatness coming back to America by the minute. LOL.
-
[QUOTE=EihTooms;1999947]And then follows zero challenge to my pointing out when and why Carter's Fed Chair appointee, Paul Volker, raised Fed Funds rates (the hyper-inflation was being driven by wage inflation; far more private sector jobs being created than there were applicants to take them. Of any economic problem to have and solve, the one you want is hyper-inflation due to wage inflation), when and why the Iranian Revolution occurred (nothing to do with Jimmy Carter), ordinary folks being able to greatly reduce the pain of those Carter year interest rates through tax deductions (taken away as an option by Reagan), or any of the other specific points I made. [/QUOTE]Wrong again! So let me enlighten you:
Volcker and the Reagan Legacy. by Brian Domitrovic, contributing editor Forbes Magazine.
"quoting the original Reagan biographer, Lou Cannon: "Reagan's greatest domestic accomplishment breaking the back of inflation that terrified the nation in the late 1970's was a product not of 'supply side' economics ballyhooed by conservatives, but of the drastic tightening of interest rates by Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker. ".
Lots of things about this view don't make sense. Above all, inflation became a staggering problem only around the time that Carter picked Volcker to chair the Fed in August 1979. Inflation had been running at 7% per year since it had first picked up in 1973, and had crossed 10% once, in 1974. But in 1979,1980, and 1981 it was double-digits all three years. What gives?
Presidents usually get one opportunity to appoint a Fed chair, and Carter got his in 1978 when Arthur Burns retired. Carter named corporate executive G. William Miller to the post. As inflation persisted, Carter blamed the American people. They set the heat too high at home, labor unions wanted raises that necessitated price increases, and drivers had to have their boats and muscle cars.
All this came to a head in Carter's incredible "malaise speech" of July 1979, in which the president laid culpability for inflation squarely at the feet of American consumerism and demanded better. In a weird mood in the moments after giving the speech, Carter asked his Cabinet to resign. Carter accepted five resignations, including that of the treasury secretary. With a good part of the government now rudderless, Carter needed to fill positions fast. Miller was cashiered from the Fed and put at the helm of Treasury.
This bizarre sequence gave Carter a second opportunity to appoint a Fed chair, and in came Volcker from the New York bank. Over the remaining seventeen months of Carter's term, inflation worsened as never before, coming in at 14% in 1980; early in that year it made a bid for 20%. As Volcker led the Fed as the Carter administration waned, inflation averaged a percentage point a month.
Volcker threw everything at the wall in a vain attempt to beat down inflation in those seventeen months. Out of the gate in September 1979, Volcker raised interest rates. This had no effect. In October, he strove to limit the money supply by such measures as raising reserve requirements at banks. No results. In 1980, he conceded to credit controls whereby bank lending was curtailed. The economy went into recession. Volcker hammered away at all his devices, but as 1980 came to a close and Reagan prepared to take office, inflation was running above 10%, and the prime rate of interest somehow stood at 22%.
When Reagan became president in 1981, Volcker kept plugging away at all his tightening maneuvers. Reagan was content to let him go, even as it became apparent that Volcker might get too tight. For Reagan was introducing a transformational policy reform on the fiscal side: marginal tax cuts.
Beginning in October 1981, and coming about every six months after that for the next two years, each rate of the income tax got cut. In October, rates went down by 1%, in January another 9%, in July another 5%, with more cuts the next year. Inflation had been continuing at its double-digit level through the first two-thirds of 1981, but then it suddenly fell by more than half as the year came to a close exactly when the sequence of tax cuts started. In 1982, inflation was half the average level of the previous three years, and in 1983 it collapsed all the way to 3%, where it would roughly stay for a generation. The "Great Inflation" of 1973-1981 was a thing of the past.
The difference was not Fed policy that had remained unchanged throughout the transition. The difference was fiscal policy. Marginal tax cuts raised the after-tax return on economic activity, getting people more interested in conducting that activity. This required more money. Real demand for money spiked enormously given the Reagan tax cuts. This enabled the Fed to supply money that actually was doing something economically outside of feeding the price level.
Before, during the Great Inflation, demand for money was largely unreal. People wanted new money so they could speculate against inflation to buy gold, oil futures, real estate or what have you. This is why Volcker's attempts to raise interest rates and restrict the money supply were ineffective. High taxes and inflation had so dulled economic spirits that all money coming from the Fed was excess money to begin with.
After summer 1982, Volcker began releasing money above the old sacred "quantity targets" as the great Reagan boom took off. The episode proved that in the context of an unwieldy public sector, monetary policy itself has no hope of getting the economy back on the track of noninflationary growth.
Paul Volcker was part of the comedy of errors that was the latter stage of the Carter administration. Without Reagan, Volcker would have been another in a line of failed Fed chairmen."
[QUOTE=EihTooms;1999947]
LOL. Ok, Natty. No, I think I will graciously decline getting involved in your strained foundation of a bet. But, by all means, keep on watching those Trump press conferences and feeling the Greatness coming back to America by the minute. LOL.[/QUOTE]Ok I will. I love it when Trump dishes on the corrupt dishonest press of which the majority have become nothing more than the propaganda wing of the Democratic Party. They deserve it! And of course it is your perogative not to accept my proposed wager. Actually I think you are being pretty smart in not making the bet. I wouldn't bet against lower taxes, less regulation and the future Trump economy either.
-
Guys, I'm going to be bowing out of this conversation, as, for reasons associated to family obligations, I don't expect to be venturing into the Philippines for sex in the foreseeable future, and I prefer to spend my communication time in venues where actual news, rather than Alt. Right propaganda holds sway. Josef Goebbels would be proud of the way some folks here have embraced the messaging coming out of the Trump administration.