Football. In a solid high school program. You don't stand on the top step of the Bond pit at 23 if you're a not a wee bit tough Doc. Out of the 20 or so guys in my immediate vicinity THREE played in the NFL....
At least nationally, Palin will be a distant, and none too pleasant, memory in 2012. Besides, would she even forgive you for your injurious comments about her and her friends? Yes, Pabst, do take her hand. Obscurity is waiting.
We've heard incessantly about the man's wealth, trading prowess, impressive IQ and more recently his physical attributes -pithy and succint football allegory. He loves to resort to expletives and I would think that he may probably say something along these lines in retort: You're a 'delusional loser', why don't you go suck Todd Palin's 'cock'?
1. If you think someone with only a couple of million is "wealthy" then you must be another ET trailer park denizen. I had more money in my 20's than I do in my 40's. Until an inheritance several years back I was just another unemployed trader living off the 3% interest on the paltry 700k I left the floor with. Around ET that's pretty good. In Chicago it made me a loser with a capital L. 2. Yea I would agree I'm a better trader than 90% of ET. ANYONE can make a little money floor trading but then I took 10k in Feb/06 and ran it up to a quarter mil in the next year and a half. Even with two six figure losing trades. Like I say I'm sure 1 out of 10 people here can do the same. For all I know you're one of them. 3. My intelligence is obvious. 4. I sucked at football. Just because I played doesn't mean I'm good. At 47 could I still beat the crap out of most folks here? Yep....
You really are the biggest idiot in the world. PEOPLE DONT GIVE A SHIT ABOUT THIS STUFF. It's been brought up over and over and over again, and sadly the American people don't give a rip. McCain will not win by bringing up "personal issues", it did not work against Clinton, and its for sure not working against Obama. If he wants to win he needs to point to issues, but its pretty late for that.
I never said or thought that "someone with only a couple of million is wealthy". I did say that you have unabashedly talked about your wealth on this board on several occasions. Therefore I should add clairvoyance to your list of impressive qualites in suggesting "that I must be another trailer park denizen." Yes indeed, "your intelligence is obvious". It is a shining beacon that radiates the length and breadth of this site. At 47 you can "beat the crap out of most folks here." Who cares? If you're suggesting that at 47 you can beat the crap out of me then to use your terminology "you're a delusional loser". I'm so scared!
Tax Policy Center estimates that relative to "current" tax law and NOT including current CBO $2.3 tril increase by 2018, McCain/Obama tax proposals would be as follows: McCain: $4.2 trillion increase to the federal debt over ten years (2009-2018). Obama: $2.9 trillion increase to the federal debt over ten years (2009-2018). http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/411750_updated_candidates_summary.pdf As a fiscal conservative/registered IND, I have yet to see a clear McCain policy plan that proves it will be more fiscally responsible than Obama, a Democrat. Last I checked, "earmarks" don't run in the $trillions and good luck cutting back on that much spending with a Dem controlled Congress and an unresolved Iraq war situation. Everyone wants tax cuts, everyone also wants to retire early, drive a Ferrari, whole nine. But when push comes to shove, tax cuts need to be responsible. Republican congressmen of the last 8yrs, many of whom have controlled Congress for the better part of the last 14yrs, have "much" to prove in spending responsbility. Until they can prove such, further tax cuts are completely wreckless with a federal debt that just doubled under Bush.
Exactly. I've been telling this to them for a while. Honestly they don't care. Their decision is based on ideals (flawed ones too), not facts...so the addition of new facts really doesn't matter to them at all.
This does not account for dynamic growth. Dynamic growth from the act of lower taxes. Obama is raising taxes on the wealthy. He assumes the wealthy will willingly pay extra taxes. The wealthy will find ways to reduce their taxable income. To project assumed receipts based on higher taxes is dangerous.