I'll concede to the fact that Bush started the war, but he said all along he could never give any kind of time table for ending it, and you can't provide any prove that he did. Obama brought our guys home. Period. No matter how much spin you put on it, like it being Bush's time table. Bush never ended any war. He only knew how to start a war. It's true no matter how many times you close your mind to it. Give it a break, would ya? This video is more waste of time.
What assertion was it you were trying to find support for? If you would like to debate the AK47 image stats, I will be happy to do so one at a time. Just say which one you think is correct first, and then we can begin with me showing you why it is wrong, and you showing me why it is right. Perhaps it would be closer for you to say that Obama's is ever so slightly in line with my foreign policy thinking that Romney's, but that would be like saying New Jersey is closer to the moon than New York is. To me, both of them have it wrong. Yes, but any President would have made it (except Clinton, who held back). I will refute them if I have evidence against them. I will not refute them if you have proof they are correct, and that proof is reliable. I don't just refute things merely to argue, despite what you may believe. What does this even mean? If I missed something in your thesis, then I apologize. Spending "kazillions" on the war absolutely made no sense to me, but as I said previously (and did not miss this point, actually) you are making the assumption that a higher bounty would have worked. Do you have any solid intel you can share that would substantiate such a claim? If the free market lets them die, why does the government spend money on them? Why does the government have any right to determine which companies go under, and which ones are saved? To do so is cronyism at it's best! Something the left is supposed to be so much against. What are you talking about? If there is a need, someone makes something in the private sector to satisfy the need. The model being "young" has nothing to do with it. Hell, pick any number of companies out there that got started through innovation and hard work, not through the government. Apple? Google? Microsoft? Some of those companies got started when the "computer" model was still young and didn't have the chance to be "molded". That's how capitalism works. Some, but you're way overboard in expecting government to do this the right way. A need will develop when the price of the alternative is worth while in producing. For example, when oil gets too high, solar, wind, etc., will become more worthwhile to use. If it costs too much to dispose of batteries and plastic bottles, waste companies will have no choice but to examine ways to deal with that - or charge people disposing of those items more. Eventually, the cost outweighs the benefits and people change - without the government. The government has a disastrous track record of trying to pick winners or manage agencies designed to offer a service or product. AIG has paid back $45B of the $67B it owed. Most of the big banks have paid back their initial bailouts, yes. How did they do that? Through a back door bank bailout where the Fed allows them to borrow almost limitless 0%~ money, and earn interest on it - risk free. They used that interest to repay loans. The legislation designed to prevent them from being too big to fail only ensured that they are much bigger now than before, and that the next collapse will be unthinkable. You are correct. All of them are to thank for this disaster. LOL! I'm acting like a victim? Is that the best you have in response? And you were doing so mediocre up to this point, I was beginning to think there might be hope here. So prices only go up when one party is desperate to buy from another? Perhaps you should check out the textbook definition of Demand-Pull inflation and then compare this to the latest money supply figures or the Federal Reserve's balance sheet growth. Each one of those might give you a clue as to what you're talking about. Haha...desperate buyers indeed. Someone is certainly out of their league here. Great, what is it we're doing to fix the debt? Are we cutting it? Nope. Are we still running deficits? Yep, except now it's better because the Fed (our own central bank) is monetizing the currency to buy our debt. We're a ponzi scheme! Excellent! How about those banks, are they fixed yet? Nope. Still taking deposits and betting them in the market, the off-market derivative exposure none of the regulators can understand. Oh, and how about that Dodd-Frank bill Obama praised? Shall we go into how that is an absolute disaster and was actually lobbied by the banks to pass in it's form? Again, what assertion is it you are looking for from me to prove? I told you one simple reason I am voting for Romney this time - I saw the last four years of shit and prefer to try something new. I don't need evidence for that opinion. Dude, if you're going to attempt humor at my expense, at least make it above the 3rd grade level, ok? Otherwise I just tune out to the hummm of "Boring". Again, which one of AK's numbers did you want to debate? The Unemployment rate? The stock market rise being the President's doing? Let me know and we can begin with both of us supporting and refuting. Otherwise talk is cheap. Anyone can sit on a perch and squawk over and over like a parrot "rrraaaww! show me stats. rrraaaww!" Pick a specific topic and we'll go through it one at a time, together. Let me know when you start debating instead of ranting. I look forward to it.
Why I won't be voting for Obama 1. I don't believe in murdering babies. 2. I don't believe a man should be allowed to marry a man. 3. 16 trillion dollar debt. 4. The attorney general is a slime pit. 5. Benghazi.
Brother Tao, you're the winner of the longest reply contest in the history of elitetrader.com. Congratulations! (see above)
You would be well advised to think for yourself, and not hand your buddy a cookie so quickly, when much of what he says is rhetoric. Again I won't defend AK's numbers. I don't doubt their validity, but I won't waste my time on them either. All I said was AK realized he has an intelligent audience, and works to provide proof to support his comments. You are the one who said his numbers were bullshit, yet you have given still, not one piece of evidence that says otherwise. ??? Yes, but any President would have made it (except Clinton, who held back).[/QUOTE] So you say, but only one president made the call. Our president. Bush could've but didn't make the call. The call he made was to take out his daddy's nemesis, Sadam Hussien. I'm not saying the guy didn't deserve to have his ass kicked, but there are plenty who were in line before him, like OSAMA, who Obama took out. I think you get my point that no real effort was made to get Bin Laden. There's probably one guy in here, who may even read this post, that can match that 25 million dollar bounty in his sleep. [/QUOTE] What does this even mean? [/QUOTE] What I mean is, 25 million dollars could likely easily be afforded by someone on this website alone. It's peanuts compared to the money and lives spent fighting in the desert on the other side of the ocean. A 1 or 2 billion bounty would have brought Bin Laden's head on a platter. If I missed something in your thesis, then I apologize. Spending "kazillions" on the war absolutely made no sense to me, but as I said previously (and did not miss this point, actually) you are making the assumption that a higher bounty would have worked. Do you have any solid intel you can share that would substantiate such a claim? [/QUOTE] No, just common sense which you seem to be lacking in certain areas if you can't agree that a billion or two would have WAY upped the odds of bringing in Bin Laden. I challenge you to tell me how many "kazillions" we spent on that war. I then challenge you to defend those dollars spent, because your boy Mitt certainly did. Again the numbers are liquid from different sources, but I remember learning that we were at 600 billion in the first few months of the invasion, and the weekly bill was in the billions. You claim to have access to all the right numbers, while I do not, so here's your chance to prove it. But I do find it wearing on my patience that you are able to keep side stepping the real issue here, that Obama was the president to put focus on what it would take to kill Bin Laden. You keep saying anyone would have(except Clinton), but Bin Laden hadn't yet even committed the level of atrocity that he did on 9/11, when Clinton had the chance to kill him. If the free market lets them die, why does the government spend money on them? Why does the government have any right to determine which companies go under, and which ones are saved? [/QUOTE] For the same reasons I gave you that you already ignored. Because we can't depend on individuals owning individual companies to look past the bottom line and do what's right for the county, the work force, and the planet. I think you are smart enough to agree, but you are obviously either too stubborn, or worried what your peers will think of you for having anything good to say about Obama. What are you talking about? If there is a need, someone makes something in the private sector to satisfy the need.[/QUOTE] And you likely think that some company would have "eventually" came along to build the Hoover Dam, without government assistance, correct? The model being "young" has nothing to do with it.[/QUOTE] The model being young has almost everything do with it, if you would just open you mind and ears a little more, as I explain further. Hell, pick any number of companies out there that got started through innovation and hard work, not through the government. [/QUOTE] Perhaps you should do a bit of research on the Hoover Dam. Any thoughts on why it has that name? You guessed it, because President Hoover was the one who pushed for its development, and congress authorized it's construction so that thousands of families, companies and industry could prosper from it. It was a mass effort brought on by the President, congress, senators, representatives, private companies, and citizens alike. All funded by tax paying citizens. Have you ever thought their may be a day that a wind or solar plant, or some other new and fantastic technological energy plant may be named after President Obama? Or, Is it impossible for you to think it is possible? Apple? Google? Microsoft? Some of those companies got started when the "computer" model was still young and didn't have the chance to be "molded". That's how capitalism works.[/QUOTE] In case you don't fully understand what secular growth is, you just described above, the companies who are at the heart of it in the computer tech industry. What you are failing to comprehend is Energy has been around for centuries and is not secular growth, so comparing the two doesn't work. The business model for one doesn't contribute to the other. That's a problem because you like others, are hell bent in thinking they should both be issues for the free market to solve. There are many different means in which we can produce that energy, but it just happens to be, at the moment, more profitable to do it in a way that compromises the health of workers and the planet. Solar and wind can't compete with the covenience of pumping oil out of the ground, or digging up coal which readily burns to produce Energy. And no business man in his right mind is going to take on the task of making "green energy" compete when the profits don't compete. Thus, green energy technology will continue to be left behind while we continue to destroy our environment, with the easy money way of doing things. A need will develop when the price of the alternative is worth while in producing. For example, when oil gets too high, solar, wind, etc., will become more worthwhile to use. If it costs too much to dispose of batteries and plastic bottles, waste companies will have no choice but to examine ways to deal with that - or charge people disposing of those items more. Eventually, the cost outweighs the benefits and people change - without the government. The government has a disastrous track record of trying to pick winners or manage agencies designed to offer a service or product.[/QUOTE] I want you and your buddies to listen and listen good, then think about it because you may actually get it, one of these days, if you try. The statements you just made represents perhaps the biggest issues we face as a species, and is the most dangerous way of thinking. You, and others, say we'll get to it later when there is a need. You might as well say we'll cut the arm off later, when we need to, after the snake has bitten us. The time and the need are long past. You just keep saying eventually, and you, me and our grandchildren will eventually get what is coming. Eventually we will run out of oil and coal, but by then we may never see the sun again, or if we do it may be deadly. AIG has paid back $45B of the $67B it owed. Most of the big banks have paid back their initial bailouts, yes. How did they do that? Through a back door bank bailout where the Fed allows them to borrow almost limitless 0%~ money, and earn interest on it - risk free. They used that interest to repay loans. The legislation designed to prevent them from being too big to fail only ensured that they are much bigger now than before, and that the next collapse will be unthinkable. [/QUOTE] I'll let Tim Massad explain it better than I can. I'm choosing to favor his opinion on the matter over yours. http://www.cnbc.com/id/41408120/Treasury_s_Massad_Talks_TARP Dude, if you're going to attempt humor at my expense, at least make it above the 3rd grade level, ok? Otherwise I just tune out to the hummm of "Boring".[/QUOTE] I admit I was making an attempt at dry humor here. But you did say you used another moniker, so I'm just trying to figure out who is who, as well.
Are you serious? Or is this your poor attempt at humor? You know good and well I have made many valid points worth considering. When you finish your thesis, by calling my comments a rant, it tells me a couple of things. 1. Your not listening, and therefor wasting my time. and/or 2. You know that your buddies who cheerlead for you will likely skip over most of the post and only read maybe the first and last few parts. When they see you have called my dialog a rant, they will likely ignore what I have to say, and continue fondling your ego, by proclaiming you the victor. Isn't that right bsam?
Dude, do you speak English? I've addressed this now four times and you still vomit up the same response. Let me try it this way - I'm not going to launch into a time consuming proof unless you agree to debate the other side. You keep coming up with excuses why you won't do it - "I won't waste my time on them". If you won't waste your time defending them, why should I prove them otherwise? If you change your mind, I'll happily oblige. Apart from that, zip it already. He didn't "make the call" because intelligence didn't have Osama pinned down. You're quite the Obama fanboi if you think Obama is responsible for personally tracking down Osama, cornering him on that plantation and then personally running in there with the seals. Hint: He got a call saying we found Osama, and he said "go". That's about all he did, and any President would have done so accordingly. Again, if you have proof that Obama did something special, out with it. Do you have proof of this? Or are we talking more hoofhearted speculation? Because if it's the latter, I think we've reached our limit on bullshit. Common sense because I ask for proof to back up your speculation? Sounds like I'm being rather logical. As for defending the war, I already told you I was against the war and Mitt's stance on the military, and Obama's stance on the military. I said I follow Ron Paul on that. Do you have reading comprehension problems? Must I repeat myself over and over? Doesn't matter. We knew Osama was a terrorist and Clinton had the chance to get him, but pulled back on it. This is well documented. Individual companies are counted on to make profit. If that means they have to terminate employees to do so, then guess what - that is what competition is all about. The government telling them they cannot fire people, or that they have to do this and that chokes off productivity and profit. Do that enough, and they leave, taking ALL the jobs with them. There is a balance of regulation that should be in place, I agree. You seem to want government calling all the shots. This has been a proven failure time and time again. Why not? Do you know the history of the Hoover Dam? The government wanted it built, and private companies DID built it (Six Companies). Would private enterprise have built it later without government contracts offered? Who is to say? It was government owned land, so many not there. But eventually someone would have built a power source for the desert because there was Vegas money to be had. So you have a good example where the President pushed a project that did some good. What was the next one after that? You know, something since nineteen thirty friggen five? Not likely. Obama is interested in rewarding lucrative contracts to people involved in helping him raise money. That's why companies like Solyndra blew up. Chicago style politics. Only an Obamaphile would think this was a good thing. When prices rise, it matters little how convenient anything is. We saw this with the oil spike in 2007 - solar and green was the place to be. But when the spike became temporary, all those faded back into the wood work. Holy drama queen. Sorry, I'm not going to argue with more speculation, especially when it's this emotional. I wanted you to know that I did click on your article and start to read. But the first sentence was this: "The Troubled Asset Relief Program, maybe one of the federal governmentâs most hated initiatives, doesnât deserve such scorn, Cramer said Thursday." Cramer...lol....after that I couldn't stop laughing. I said YOU were using another moniker. Not me. And I maintain that stance.
You keep going on and on and on about the buddies thing. Do you have some sort of complex where you look over your shoulder all the time to see who is watching? This discussion, if you want to call it that by some grace of God, is between you and me. Stop pointing to others here. Are you that insecure? Most of what you put out there is speculation. So no, it's not a debate. It's just a discussion. When you follow it up with sarcasm like "be careful what you wish for" like I'm supposed to be intimidated by your "rapier" sharp wit, then you get a sarcastic response. Don't like it? Don't offer it up.