Jump to content

Recommended Posts

not sure about the difference in $240 billion and the $1trillion it shows. Unless one doesn't include interest on the debt?
I think the wiki article is just messed up a little.According to the footnoted source (pg. 8), the deficit is $1.1 trillion, which matches the revenues less outlays. The net interest is $242 billion.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 2.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

What's the difference between a particular gene sequence in an abstract sense and a particular gene sequence that exists within a cell? Can you explain the difference in a way that doesn't boil down

This is pretty funny. The problem isn't the itty bitty details. The problem is Romney refuses to say if he's going to play Poker or Go Fish with the cards, and is on record as saying he doesn't know

I see.   I'd rather give the poor tax breaks than give them welfare. As a general rule. Let them keep their money to live on rather than take their money and then provide for them.

Does his being completely unqualified mean that we are less f'd or more f'd than he described?
I honestly wonder if that interview got him in the door anywhere. he's 100% correct about the role of the trader.jury's still out on europe though. we don't have a fucking clue, same story as the last three years or so.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Does his being completely unqualified mean that we are less f'd or more f'd than he described?
No conclusion about the possibilities which he described can be made based on his standing/'qualification' under a structure. His standing or lack of 'qualification' may explain his choice of rhetoric, that's all.
Link to post
Share on other sites

i wanted to post something about this clown last night to get in front of it. a family member sent me that link with a subject line "this worries me"after watching i knew there were only 2 possibilities1.) he's a total clown with no trading experience pretending to be something he's not (his language is hilarious - "people can profit from this, for instance HEDGING STRATEGIESa...or buying treasury bonds" i mean, it's hilarious.2.) he actually trades his own money but was nervous on tv and said a bunch of stupid stuff due to nerves while blatantly talking his positionb, i.e. he's all in on the disaster trade short stocks long bonds and gold and is trying to spook people into selling because he'd obviously make money.BBC should not have given him a platform to do eithera.) this is the most glaring hole in his facade. it's like the most generic comment you could possible make. oh, you don't say...you can mitigate risk with a hedge??? PLEASE REGALE US FURTHER WITH YOUR EXPERTISE. And after everything he'd said previously about the end of the world etc this is like telling people on the titanic to prepare to bail a little water. total joke.b.) financial media allow this frequently, and it's annoying, but it's typically someone like bill gross--someone capable of moving the market--and when bill gross comes on cnbc and talks his position it probably does the average investor a service because you don't want to be fading pimco, generally. for a little peon like this guy they should NEVER allow him the opportunity to scare the shit out of people like this for his own benefit.

Link to post
Share on other sites
i wanted to post something about this clown last night to get in front of it. a family member sent me that link with a subject line "this worries me"after watching i knew there were only 2 possibilities1.) he's a total clown with no trading experience pretending to be something he's not (his language is hilarious - "people can profit from this, for instance HEDGING STRATEGIESa...or buying treasury bonds" i mean, it's hilarious.2.) he actually trades his own money but was nervous on tv and said a bunch of stupid stuff due to nerves while blatantly talking his positionb, i.e. he's all in on the disaster trade short stocks long bonds and gold and is trying to spook people into selling because he'd obviously make money.BBC should not have given him a platform to do eithera.) this is the most glaring hole in his facade. it's like the most generic comment you could possible make. oh, you don't say...you can mitigate risk with a hedge??? PLEASE REGALE US FURTHER WITH YOUR EXPERTISE. And after everything he'd said previously about the end of the world etc this is like telling people on the titanic to prepare to bail a little water. total joke.b.) financial media allow this frequently, and it's annoying, but it's typically someone like bill gross--someone capable of moving the market--and when bill gross comes on cnbc and talks his position it probably does the average investor a service because you don't want to be fading pimco, generally. for a little peon like this guy they should NEVER allow him the opportunity to scare the shit out of people like this for his own benefit.
1.) If you would use capital letters maybe educated people would take you seriously more often. It's one slight left (or right for lefties) pinky movement away.2.) Thank you for defending those who make a profit off of others. They're called job creators for a reason.3.) Your bias is showing.a.) I never mentioned an a.b.) Why are you reading b.) when it's obvious I was making fun of a.)?
Link to post
Share on other sites
1.) If you would use capital letters maybe educated people would take you seriously more often. It's one slight left (or right for lefties) pinky movement away.2.) Thank you for defending those who make a profit off of others. They're called job creators for a reason.3.) Your bias is showing.a.) I never mentioned an a.b.) Why are you reading b.) when it's obvious I was making fun of a.)?
Honestly, what the f are you talking about?
Link to post
Share on other sites
Honestly, what the f are you talking about?
No, honestly what is your question? Are you asking what capital letters are? Are you asking why educated people might be put off by someone not putting the amazing effort required to use capital letters? Are you asking why moving money around shouldn't make you rich? What are you asking, "honestly"?
Link to post
Share on other sites
1.) If you would use capital letters maybe educated people would take you seriously more often. It's one slight left (or right for lefties) pinky movement away.2.) Thank you for defending those who make a profit off of others. They're called job creators for a reason.3.) Your bias is showing.
1.) i write posts as fast as possible2.) wat3.) wat
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 Members: LongLiveYorkeYou were typing something, go on and finish it. and hurry up I haven't got all night
No, "honestly", I saw you typing something, then a few minutes later you were out of the thread, then 10 minutes or so later I saw you back in the thread after I caught you. just from an intellectually honest standpoint, you might want to have responded. now you look relatively stupid and cowardly to the four people that are adeptly following the conversation. :(Liberal education: exposed.
Link to post
Share on other sites
1.) i write posts as fast as possible2.) wat3.) wat
1.) ROFL. You're saying it is a matter of pragmatism you don't move your pinky toward the shift key? Can you pit your typing skills against someone who tries to be as reasonable as you, and has similar typing skills, and purport you can out type that person based on "shift key neglect"? HAHAHAH2.) read for comprehension.3.) Read for comprehension.
Link to post
Share on other sites
No, "honestly", I saw you typing something, then a few minutes later you were out of the thread, then 10 minutes or so later I saw you back in the thread after I caught you. just from an intellectually honest standpoint, you might want to have responded. now you look relatively stupid and cowardly to the four people that are adeptly following the conversation. :(Liberal education: exposed.
See, unlike you, I don't feel the need to post every vague idea that goes through my head. There's a lot of stupid stuff up there, and I try not to pollute these boards with it (as much as I can help it).And, I don't know what the "Liberal education" part means.
now you look relatively stupid and cowardly to the four people that are adeptly following the conversation. :club:
urbaski.jpgI'm devastated by that.
Link to post
Share on other sites
See, unlike you, I don't feel the need to post every vague idea that goes through my head. There's a lot of stupid stuff up there, and I try not to pollute these boards with it (as much as I can help it).And, I don't know what the "Liberal education" part means. urbaski.jpgI'm devastated by that.
"Unlike you (who has like 120 posts) I (who have 7,800+ posts) don't feel the need to post every vague idea that goes through my head (I start posting, then don't post, then decide to post instead after I get called out by the guy who saw me posting in the first place).""There's a lot of stupid stuff up there, and I try not to pollute these boards with it (as much as I can help)... except to reply when it is innocuous stupid stuff and isn't related to my field or something me and my (possible future) kids have a vested interest in, or when it is a legitimate question/opposition". "*Picture* because I'm funny.""Duhhhh, what does 'liberal' mean.. duuhhhh". excellent post, LLY the Science guy... thanks for proving the point how useless you ivory tower types can be.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Ron Paul is doing himself no favors in the Republican race by condemning the drone attack that killed al-Awlaki
Republican presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul denounced Obama for "assassinating" al-Awlaki, saying that the American cleric should have been tried in a U.S. court."If the American people accept this blindly and casually, that we now have an accepted practice of the president assassinating people who he thinks are bad guys. I think it's sad," Paul told reporters after a speech in Manchester, New Hampshire, Friday."Al-Awlaki was born here, he's an American citizen, he was never tried or charged for any crimes," Paul said. "To start assassinating American citizens without charges - we should think very seriously about this."But U.S. Rep. Peter King, R-New York, chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, said the lethal strike was lawful."It was entirely legal. If a citizen takes up arms against his own country, he becomes an enemy of the country. The president was acting entirely within his rights and I fully support the president," King said.
Personally, I didn't accept it blindly or casually. I accepted it with a FUCK YEAH WE GOT 'IM.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Ron Paul is doing himself no favors in the Republican race by condemning the drone attack that killed al-AwlakiPersonally, I didn't accept it blindly or casually. I accepted it with a FUCK YEAH WE GOT 'IM.
So you are OK with those in authority unilaterally assassinating US citizens without a trial for whatever reason they want?
Link to post
Share on other sites
So you are OK with those in authority unilaterally assassinating US citizens without a trial for whatever reason they want?
I am.His country of citizenship is meaningless. If somebody declares war on your country and takes part in mass murder or the planning of mass murder you take them out if you can and you have no way to apprehend them.Before you do that you should take into account how your actions will effect your relationship with the other country that the person is in. You wouldn't send a drone into Russia to take somebody out but doing it in Yemen is a good tactic.
Link to post
Share on other sites

So the right to a trial doesn't exist for US Citizens if someone in power dislikes that person?I think you're missing the point of due process.It's one thing if it's a battlefield and they have guns and are pointing them at us. That's a war.But saying "this person participated in a plot at some point in the past, therefore we can execute them whenever we want" is a bit scary.I suspect they are probably right in this case, I don't doubt they are pretty sure about it. But we've seen how government handles power, and the slippery slope argument definitely applies here. If this goes unchallenged, it'll just be a matter of time before the govt is assassinating people here in the US on weak evidence under the guise of "terrorism". Look at the innocent people swept into Guantanamo. Next time, those people will just disappear into the night, the way they did under Stalin. People will look back and wonder how we let this one go.

Link to post
Share on other sites
So you are OK with those in authority unilaterally assassinating US citizens without a trial for whatever reason they want?
Your question is faulty. It wasn't "For whatever reason they want[ed]." It was for the very specific reason that this particular citizen was an extremely dangerous terrorist and terrorist organizer/promoter whose goals included murdering as many American civilians and military personnel as possible.
But saying "this person participated in a plot at some point in the past, therefore we can execute them whenever we want" is a bit scary.I suspect they are probably right in this case, I don't doubt they are pretty sure about it. But we've seen how government handles power, and the slippery slope argument definitely applies here. If this goes unchallenged, it'll just be a matter of time before the govt is assassinating people here in the US on weak evidence under the guise of "terrorism". Look at the innocent people swept into Guantanamo. Next time, those people will just disappear into the night, the way they did under Stalin. People will look back and wonder how we let this one go.
Awlaki was undoubtedly involved in current, active plots against the US and our allies. You want proof? So does everybody. Tough shit because it's classified, and for good reason. I think your slippery slope argument sounds paranoid. Basically if you don't want the US government to assassinate you, don't be a bona fide terrorist leader hiding in Yemen. Or if you are a bona fide terrorist leader hiding somewhere, turn yourself over to the authorities when it becomes public knowledge that our military is trying to assassinate you. The legality and ethics of this has been debated for a long time, because it has been public knowledge for a long time that al-Awlaki was being targeted for death. If he'd turned himself in he would have gotten his trial.
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm happy the democrats are forced to justify the killing of a terrorist.It's nice that they finally realize that killing them is a viable alternative to getting along with them

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...