Going To Be A Fun 2 Weeks

[Loismustdie 0]

They are in an interesting position. They have made some moves to take the gloves off which was needed but that could backfire easily if McCain decides to truly go negative. The most recent add links Abramoff to McCain, which is what it is, but this is what will happen-if McCain fires back with say, an Ayers add Obama will decry his as going negative, which of course the media will report McCain as having done, and they will say it again and again. I think McCain will still have to do it anyway. Now, the most fun part to me is the 2 contrasts of the quote on quote "big" hollywood stories, and that's Roseannes reaction to Voights article and the Brangelinas klans lack of support for Obama. I love it. Voights article is what it is, it was a decent piece of opinion, whatever, but then the Obama supporter, the great thundercunt Roseanne comes out and just attacks that family, brutally, and really uncalled for, but this is my thought here... this is what you get when you try and run as a celeb rather than a known entity, celebs will back you, and by and large, celebs are vacuous, retarded and in some cases evil. Now, what I love about it is this- Obama really can't say much, because if he fires back and comes down on her Roseanne is LOUD and completely irrational but people will eat it up, and he can't afford that right now. He just can't. He actually needs Roseannes support. That's got to hurt somewhere special.

[copernicus 0]

Roseanne is one sick biatch:"Also miss jolie says she likes mccain too and hasn't decided who to endorse....huh? Aren't you supposed to be somewhat enlightened, or do you not know that the african daughter you hold in every picture had parents who suffered and died because of the republican party's worldwide economic assault on africa over the last few decades since reagan? whaaaa...??????!!!! (for that matter, the thai and cambodian sons you are photo'd with weekly too who's pictures you sell to raise money to help the poor? Their families are victims of America's right wing military incursions too. Mccain wants to continue with the idea of war for profit...the americans are over that thinking now! They have drugged our troops and lower classes into supporting their oil business atrocities for long enough"What is it about fat, unfunny comediennes who's name begins with R?

[Nimue1995 1]

And supposedly the Republicans have no imperialist leanings? Com'on people. Bush pushed the imperial presidency about as far as anyone could and then some. In fact it's a disease that's equally rampant among the Dems as well.

[Nimue1995 1]

They are in an interesting position. They have made some moves to take the gloves off which was needed but that could backfire easily if McCain decides to truly go negative. The most recent add links Abramoff to McCain, which is what it is, but this is what will happen-if McCain fires back with say, an Ayers add Obama will decry his as going negative, which of course the media will report McCain as having done, and they will say it again and again. I think McCain will still have to do it anyway. Now, the most fun part to me is the 2 contrasts of the quote on quote "big" hollywood stories, and that's Roseannes reaction to Voights article and the Brangelinas klans lack of support for Obama. I love it. Voights article is what it is, it was a decent piece of opinion, whatever, but then the Obama supporter, the great thundercunt Roseanne comes out and just attacks that family, brutally, and really uncalled for, but this is my thought here... this is what you get when you try and run as a celeb rather than a known entity, celebs will back you, and by and large, celebs are vacuous, retarded and in some cases evil. Now, what I love about it is this- Obama really can't say much, because if he fires back and comes down on her Roseanne is LOUD and completely irrational but people will eat it up, and he can't afford that right now. He just can't. He actually needs Roseannes support. That's got to hurt somewhere special.

Yeah I bet McCain just wishes he were sexy enough to attract a Hollywood crowd besides the Terminator. Regardless, I'd hope most people would think like me and give the Hollywood celebs about as much credence as they do the Enquirer.

[Loismustdie 0]

Roseanne is one sick biatch:"Also miss jolie says she likes mccain too and hasn't decided who to endorse....huh? Aren't you supposed to be somewhat enlightened, or do you not know that the african daughter you hold in every picture had parents who suffered and died because of the republican party's worldwide economic assault on africa over the last few decades since reagan? whaaaa...??????!!!! (for that matter, the thai and cambodian sons you are photo'd with weekly too who's pictures you sell to raise money to help the poor? Their families are victims of America's right wing military incursions too. Mccain wants to continue with the idea of war for profit...the americans are over that thinking now! They have drugged our troops and lower classes into supporting their oil business atrocities for long enough"What is it about fat, unfunny comediennes who's name begins with R?

I had thought about that as well. They are what they are. You don't have to be a bible thumper to understand this scripture "By there fruits ye shall know them." Meaning, there actions will tell you the person, and we see that so much right now, never so stark as when you look at Obama. All this talk about "no more politics as usual" but really, that is all he has done, maybe more so than anyone in the history of politics. I know plenty of people that back Obama, the one common thread they have is this: they are ill informed and have no real defendable stance on anything, and no ideas of there own. They believe many things but have no idea how to get where it is they want to go, so any idea will do, even if it's not an idea, just a well packaged promise of an idea is cool. Even now that the package is obviously less than polished, well, that's still O.k. because McCain is McBush, and we can't have that. Now, don't ask them why, because they have no idea. (It's usually an unintelligible mess of energy crisis and the economy, and most of them are doing just fine, they just assume others are not, worse they believe that everyone at all times should have it good. I actually spoke with a person who works in the stock market who though the idea that each transaction theoretically has a winner and a loser is somehow flawed. That blew my mind.) I really have a hard time saying this but more and more I just don't see any other way- if you support Obama you just aren't thinking it through, assuming you are intelligent to start with. Most people I meet after talking with them about it it's obvious they just aren't all that bright. Not stupid,just not to bright.

[Loismustdie 0]

And supposedly the Republicans have no imperialist leanings? Com'on people. Bush pushed the imperial presidency about as far as anyone could and then some. In fact it's a disease that's equally rampant among the Dems as well.

Exhibit A.

[Loismustdie 0]

Yeah I bet McCain just wishes he were sexy enough to attract a Hollywood crowd besides the Terminator. Regardless, I'd hope most people would think like me and give the Hollywood celebs about as much credence as they do the Enquirer.

Most people don't think like you, if that was the case you wouldn't have the ratings that access hollywood type shows get, or Oprahs book club. People by and large worship celebrity.

[copernicus 0]

I actually spoke with a person who works in the stock market who though the idea that each transaction theoretically has a winner and a loser is somehow flawed. That blew my mind.)

Not sure what youre saying here, but if its that "all transactions have a winner and a loser", most economists will disagree with you ( in the absence of distorting regulation at least)

[Nimue1995 1]

Exhibit A.

Lol LMD, I'm actually contemplating voting for Bob Barr. Can't quite bring myself to vote for McCain, especially if Romney is his VP. But I'm not that crazy about Obama either .

[copernicus 0]

Lol LMD, I'm actually contemplating voting for Bob Barr. Can't quite bring myself to vote for McCain, especially if Romney is his VP. But I'm not that crazy about Obama either .

dont tell me you were a Paulie, lmao.

[Loismustdie 0]

Not sure what youre saying here, but if its that "all transactions have a winner and a loser", most economists will disagree with you ( in the absence of distorting regulation at least)

Of course they do. You could argue that time is an issue, but every day millions of transactions take place that have winners and losers, and each day every transaction that happened the previous day and the previous days going back however many years paints a different picture. Try to tell all transactors on options friday that no one is a loser and you would be laughed at. The argument that economist can make probably has to do with time value, but much like poker bankroll comes into play, even more so with investing because so many people extend there BR by going on margin, which changes the face of the game. There are alot of ways to look at it, but I probably should have quailified it by saying we were talking at the time about options, which is even more defined in my mind when it comes to winners and losers, because time value is more tightly quantified. I agree that it can be pretty abstract.

[Loismustdie 0]

Lol LMD, I'm actually contemplating voting for Bob Barr. Can't quite bring myself to vote for McCain, especially if Romney is his VP. But I'm not that crazy about Obama either .

I can respect a vote for Bob Carr as long as the voter says out loud that they are aware that it is useless. Romney in my mind is probably the best choice if McCain wants to win.

[Nimue1995 1]

dont tell me you were a Paulie, lmao.

I actually liked Ron Paul overall better than the other Republican choices.

[Nimue1995 1]

I can respect a vote for Bob Carr as long as the voter says out loud that they are aware that it is useless. Romney in my mind is probably the best choice if McCain wants to win.

Hmm Schweitzer must've gotten the name wrong then. Whoever the Libertarian candidate for President is anyway. Actually it's probable that if I voted for Obama, my vote would be useless also since Montana is still pretty red. I doubt they'd go with Obama unless he picked Schweitzer as his running mate. And if he did that then I'd have to rethink things a bit. Schweitzer is just a bit to the right of McCain,lol.

[copernicus 0]

Of course they do. You could argue that time is an issue, but every day millions of transactions take place that have winners and losers, and each day every transaction that happened the previous day and the previous days going back however many years paints a different picture. Try to tell all transactors on options friday that no one is a loser and you would be laughed at.The argument that economist can make probably has to do with time value, but much like poker bankroll comes into play, even more so with investing because so many people extend there BR by going on margin, which changes the face of the game.There are alot of ways to look at it, but I probably should have quailified it by saying we were talking at the time about options, which is even more defined in my mind when it comes to winners and losers, because time value is more tightly quantified.I agree that it can be pretty abstract.

Nothing at all abstract about the basic economic argument. Humans maximize their own utility in any transaction entered into, and therefore all transactions freely entered into maximizes the utility of both parties, ergo no winners or losers.

[Loismustdie 0]

Nothing at all abstract about the basic economic argument. Humans maximize their own utility in any transaction entered into, and therefore all transactions freely entered into maximizes the utility of both parties, ergo no winners or losers.

Unless the humans suck at it, and lose money, and since that is the only result one can judge it by some will win and some will lose.

[copernicus 0]

Unless the humans suck at it, and lose money, and since that is the only result one can judge it by some will win and some will lose.

But no one but the participant knows his own utility. (And remember your basic premise was that someone ALWAYS wins or loses. Clearly that isnt true)

[hblask 1]

I can respect a vote for Bob Carr as long as the voter says out loud that they are aware that it is useless.

If by "useless" you mean "just slightly less useless than every other voter's vote", then I'll agree with you.A vote for one of the two wings of the one main party (the "I love big government" party) pretty much means nothing. It is interpreted by politicians as "lazy voters liked that person's image better". A vote for a third or fourth or fifth party, especially if it occurred in large enough numbers, can only be interpreted by either half of the one big party as "oh oh, they're on to us, we may need to fix this."

[hblask 1]

Unless the humans suck at it, and lose money, and since that is the only result one can judge it by some will win and some will lose.

This is only true in the very short term. Over the long term, people will make the choices that are best for them. The learning process is part of the utility. If they suck at it, they may find that different allocations of their money is the best use of it, in areas more suited to their expertise. So while in the short term there may be winners and losers, in the long run freely entered transactions are win-win. This is a basic tenet of economics. Not knowing this is the main reason Democrats suck at politics.