Since when is enforcement of property rights a priority of the democrats? This is just partisan nonsense, and false as well!
They actually called it the "bum-of-the-month-club" but the implication was clearly that next to Louis they were all bums. But I am sure that there were some that thought Louis fought all weak opponents which of course is nonsense. My father who was a huge fight fan thought Louis was the gold standard for heavyweights. But back to the central point ... it is at least twice as difficult as fuck.
Making plans for the day my current strategy won't scale. Could be at $5 million, $10 million, and $50 million for sure. Then I just sit by and watch until Christmas. May have to genetically optimize on the other 60 contracts in my database to have a model to scale once it reaches that limit. Thinking the 10+ ticks I sometimes see in RBOB is normal bid/ask spread for that, and corn has 1-2 ticks and I hardly ever see more than 2 ticks of slippage in NQ. Also thinking RBOB may be the only limit. A unit'll trade 5 NQ, 4 ZC, and 1 RB. Know the limit is based on NQ or 10,000 contracts, so 2,000 units is max before I start doing other things besides what I'm doing now. Further thinking after the 3 5 figure days in a row I had this week the first 6 figure day is within 3-4 months.
i buy lotto tickets and never look at them,when people ask my net worth,i tell em i'm a multimillionaire, but not sure how many million because i haven't checked lately
Actually he has a very good point otherwise billionaires would need a standing army to protect them. They instead choose standing armies of lawyers and lobbyists to peddle influence on the gubbermint to hinder their competition and access free gubbermint loans etc etc. democrat politicians almost exclusively haven't seen a market intervention they didn't like.
You mean like the Koch brothers, Murdoch, and that whole assortment of bad haircuts? Tell me about their "standing armies," since, according to you, they don't use lobbyists or lawyers.
I just gave an explanation of why billionaires would look to embrace market interventionist democrats. If you fail to understand, that's your problem not mine.
Yeah, but what about the "otherwise billionaires would need a standing army to protect them" part? Want more names? Just ask. In the meantime, I'd like to know more about these Republican billionaires' "standing armies," since, according to you, they don't use lobbyists or lawyers. You really should take the time to read your own posts, whereas the rest of us should probably ignore them as you are presently doing.
FYI: Your reading comprehension is below that of 5th grade. I never stated nor implied such nonsense , but there you are creating your own ridiculous straw-man argument. Funny thing I bet you're completely oblivious of your complete and utter dependence upon creating straw-men arguments or latching onto spurious or insignificant points to ANY DISCUSSION.
my point was for post bear stearns,lehman,bailout,fed crawled into bed with goldman,zero int,more rigged than ever..stil tradeable,you just have to watch for which lies are coming apart,those are the fundamentals