5 women? What a #^&#^&#^&#^&head.

Or it's completely made up.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The enquirer broke the story about Edwards. This is true and quite easy to believe.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I give him credit.....the chicks were hot
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

resume' enhancement for democrats :kewl::musc::humpty:

the story broke from the National enquirer

this is no different then the trump craigslist story

Just a democratic's version

the story broke from the National enquirer

this is no different then the trump craigslist story

Just a democratic's version

The national inquirer has a solid record of exposing presidential hopeful's sexual conquests. John Edwards, Jesse Jackson and a couple of others. All turned out to be correct.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Try searching "National inquirer and Obama" for somfe real entertainment. Then try "National Inquirer and Hillary"...lol
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It's been confirmed by the Washington post
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It's been confirmed by the Washington post
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Lol
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I meant Washington Times. Not post
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I meant Washington Times. Not post
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Great, another tabloid.

resume' enhancement for democrats :kewl::musc::humpty:

Thanks for parroting Rush for those of us that don't listen to him.

I'm assuming this is made up, I know 'power is sexy' but even if he is president, I can't imagine 5 different women wanting to :humpty: Ted Cruz

I'm assuming this is made up, I know 'power is sexy' but even if he is president, I can't imagine 5 different women wanting to :humpty: Ted Cruz
I'm assuming it is as well. Look at the timing, Trump tries to insinuate Cruz's wife is ugly then NE runs the story he's sleeping with attractive women. Events could be related.

Can't wait to see TDF casting his ballot for HRC.

I'm assuming it is as well. Look at the timing, Trump tries to insinuate Cruz's wife is ugly then NE runs the story he's sleeping with attractive women. Events could be related.

Can't wait to see TDF casting his ballot for HRC.

Right now I saw a poll that Trump is -11 to Hillary nationally after the wives cracks...

The GOP is praying this is made up about Cruz, otherwise it will be a blowout in Nov if Trump keeps up his schtick.....

I'm surprised you guys are so quick to poo poo this.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Thanks for parroting Rush for those of us that don't listen to him.



don't think I've heard Rush's voice in 10 years...is he still on the radio?

5 women? What a #^&#^&#^&#^&head.


and the horse you rode in on...........

don't think I've heard Rush's voice in 10 years...is he still on the radio?

Fine. That is his oft repeated line about a resume, however

Fine. That is his oft repeated line about a resume, however

sounds like you listen to him more than me :laugha:

Fine. That is his oft repeated line about a resume, however
Shouldn't the fact that they think alike be damning enough?

Shouldn't the fact that they think alike be damning enough?

Ok Chris Mathews
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Can't wait to see TDF casting his ballot for HRC.

Better chance of you being spotted wearing a leisure suit.....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

and blue swede shoes :uhuh:

What's the big deal, Ted has 5 women over time....chit Tiger Woods had 6 every week end.... and JFK was a whore master...lol....:)

What's the big deal, Ted has 5 women over time....chit Tiger Woods had 6 every week end.... and JFK was a whore master...lol....:)

Tiger never wanted to be president ;)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[QUOTE=Nebe;1097406]Tiger never wanted to be president ;)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device[/QUOTE

That is true, but John Edwards(loverboy) wife knew all along that he had an off spring with another woman...his wife wanted to B 1st lady, when it was evitable that he had no chance to B president she divorced him.

:lm:

[QUOTE=Nebe;1097406]Tiger never wanted to be president ;)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device[/QUOTE

That is true, but John Edwards(loverboy) wife knew all along that he had an off spring with another woman...his wife wanted to B 1st lady, when it was evitable that he had no chance to B president she divorced him.

I think the big deal here is because of the whole lewinski fiasco, people care a great deal about who the president sticks his penis into. It's a trust thing. One would think that if his wife can't trust him to keep in in his pants, the man has no integrity.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[QUOTE=Fly Rod;1097421]

I think the big deal here is because of the whole lewinski fiasco, people care a great deal about who the president sticks his penis into. It's a trust thing.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Then please tell us why Bill Clinton remains enormously popular with liberals.

LOL to this entire thread and dead on Jim! If infidelity is such an issue, how to explain the Clintons?

[QUOTE=Nebe;1097425]

Then please tell us why Bill Clinton remains enormously popular with liberals.

Its about Cruz and the Republicans who will may or may not vote for him if it is Factual ...

this has nothing to do with Bill , most liberals dont care what people do behind closed doors even Cruz

[QUOTE=Jim in CT;1097485]

Its about Cruz and the Republicans who will may or may not vote for him if it is Factual ...

this has nothing to do with Bill , most liberals dont care what people do behind closed doors even Cruz

There is nothing factual about any of this . I read Obamas from Mars on page 2
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

LOL to this entire thread and dead on Jim! If infidelity is such an issue, how to explain the Clintons?

Easy to explain the Clintons. Much of liberalism is based on this notion - "if it feels good, do it". Liberals don't care about such old-fashioned things as ethics, responsibility, committment, or consequences. That's why the liberal agenda has gone from merely distasteful, to almost satanic. We can't give schoolchildren sodas, because they aren't responsible enough to manage that. But we can give them condoms! Nothing stupid about that, nope!

Eas to explain the Clintons. Much of liberalism is based on this notion - "if it feels good, do it". Liberals don't care about such old-fashioned things as ethics, responsibility, committment, or consequences. That's why the liberal agenda has gone from merely distasteful, to almost satanic. We can't give schoolchildren sodas, because they aren't responsible enough to manage that. But we can give them condoms! Nothing stupid about that, nope!

You have a lot of hate.

You have a lot of hate.

Your side says it's wrong to hand out soda and chocolate milk at school, but "enlightened" to hand out condoms in school. I point out the insanity of that. In response you tell me I am full of hate.

Liberalism 101: when a thoughtful conservative backs you into a corner from which there is no escape (which will happen often when you think it's beter to serve condoms in school than chocolate milk), accuse hom of being a racist, a sexist, a homophobe, a xenophobe, an Islamophobe, or some other kind of hatemonger.

Heck, that's a whole lot easier than admitting that your side's position here is looney tunes.

If I put smiley faces on those posts, will it make you feel better? There isn't a little haert thingy, unfortunately.

Conservative 101 - I got mine so you should be able to get yours. If you can't, it is your fault. Pull yourself up by the bookstraps. I'm not giving any of my hard earned $ to you. You just want a handout.

Love the fetus, hate the baby.

Don't take away any of my personal freedoms - unless I want to tell you what to do with your body or who to marry.

Let's lock up all the Muslims and then when people complain, cry that they are calling me a Islamophobe or a hatemonger.

Pull out the old racist strawman card again - Kevin is going to hate when he sees that.

Didn't see anything racist in either post....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Didn't see anything racist in either post....No, just a lot of stupid stereotypes.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

He is claiming that people use the racism card when no one here ever does. A lot of his posts claims people call others racist.

Conservative 101 - I got mine so you should be able to get yours. If you can't, it is your fault. Pull yourself up by the bookstraps. I'm not giving any of my hard earned $ to you. You just want a handout.

Love the fetus, hate the baby.

Don't take away any of my personal freedoms - unless I want to tell you what to do with your body or who to marry.

Let's lock up all the Muslims and then when people complain, cry that they are calling me a Islamophobe or a hatemonger.

Pull out the old racist strawman card again - Kevin is going to hate when he sees that.

Solid proof that liberals are insane
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Liberalism 101: when a thoughtful conservative backs you into a corner from which there is no escape (which will happen often when you think it's beter to serve condoms in school than chocolate milk), accuse hom of being a racist, a sexist, a homophobe, a xenophobe, an Islamophobe, or some other kind of hatemonger.



Solid proof that conservatives are insane.

He is claiming that people use the racism card when no one here ever does. A lot of his posts claims people call others racist.

There were definitely stupid stereotypes.....in both posts....yours as well

And actually, yours was harsher.


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I hope you know my whole post was meant to be a stupid stereotype.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

He is claiming that people use the racism card when no one here ever does. A lot of his posts claims people call others racist.

You don't htink liberals (not the ones here) have a habit of using the race card? Obama doesn't? Hilary doesn't?

Whatever...

I hope you know my whole post was meant to be a stupid stereotype.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Here's the difference...there is nohting in you rpost that is an accurate description of the conservative agenda...zip. I said liberals would rather see schoolchildren get condoms than chocolate milk and soda. I have facts to back that up. By and large, that's exactly what liberals believe. And it's bat-sh*t crazy.

Here's one for you Paul. Bill Clinton kicked millions of poor people off welfare. He cut spending and balanced the budget. I mean, the Tea Party agenda is basically calling for a return to what Clinton did. Yet Clinton is a hero to liberals, and the Tea Party is villified by liberals.

Why is that?

Have fun with that.

Here's one for you Paul. Bill Clinton kicked millions of poor people off welfare. He cut spending and balanced the budget. I mean, the Tea Party agenda is basically calling for a return to what Clinton did. Yet Clinton is a hero to liberals, and the Tea Party is villified by liberals.

Why is that?

Have fun with that.
Clinton raised taxes at a time the economy was cranking and the world was relatively peaceful which afforded the spending cuts.

You're cherry picking like a hamster correlating the size of the water bottle with wheel speed.

Clinton raised taxes at a time the economy was cranking and the world was relatively peaceful which afforded the spending cuts.

You're cherry picking like a hamster correlating the size of the water bottle with wheel speed.

I htunk he raised taxes, then lowered them. He also cut spending to the point of generating a surplus, and kicked millions off welfare.

From that, all you mention is the tax hikes. Bit I am the one cherry-picking. After the Gingrich revolution, taxes were cut, apending was cut more. And it worked.

Spence, he raised taxes in 1993. Then cut them in 1997. In 1997, he cut the capital gains tax rate from 28% to 20%. If anyone proposed a similar capital gains cut today, liberals would say that person wants to make rich people richer and let everyone else starve.

Then there's the welfare reform. Boy, do libs want to forget that ever happened.

You don't htink liberals (not the ones here) have a habit of using the race card? Obama doesn't? Hilary doesn't?

Whatever...

You use the race card more than anyone I know. Careful you don't turn into what you hate.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You use the race card more than anyone I know. Careful you don't turn into what you hate.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"You use the race card more than anyone I know."

Pointing out that libs use the race card, isn't me using the race card. I occasionally say that Obama is a racist, because I can back that up. I would submit that no one who sits in Rev Wrights church for 20 years, and really embraces that crap, isn't a racist.

"Careful you don't turn into what you hate"

Yes, I'm going to turn into a liberal, right after I get drafted by the Boston Celtics.

Sure it is. Constantly claiming someone uses the race card is as bad as calling someone a racist.

I don't think the liberals here have anywhere near the hate you demonstrate daily in your posts.

Sure it is. Constantly claiming someone uses the race card is as bad as calling someone a racist.

I don't think the liberals here have anywhere near the hate you demonstrate daily in your posts.

"Constantly claiming someone uses the race card is as bad as calling someone a racist"

Not when I am demonstrably correct.

"I don't think the liberals here have anywhere near the hate you demonstrate daily in your posts"

Let us all make sure we get this straight:

Liberals: it's better for schoolchildren to get condoms at school than chocolate milk.

Jim: That seems stupid to me.

PaulS: Jim, you are full of hate.

Is that about right?

Again, anytime a thoughtful person uses facts and issues to point out the many insane tenants of liberalism, we are accused of hate. Got it.

The hate cause you to spit on protesters and sucker punch them. Even leads to campaign managers getting arrested.

The hate cause you to spit on protesters and sucker punch them. Even leads to campaign managers getting arrested.

You didn't happen to see any hate from the protesters did you ??
Yea that's what I thought
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The hate cause you to spit on protesters and sucker punch them. Even leads to campaign managers getting arrested.

"hate cause you to spit on protesters and sucker punch them"

ME? I beg to differ, sir...

"Even leads to campaign managers getting arrested"

I agree Trump is peddling somthing close to hate. On that issue...you-me, same page.

You didn't happen to see any hate from the protesters did you ??
Yea that's what I thought
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I see protesters - Stupid protesters who should limit themselves to staying outside to protest but spitting and suckerpunching people is at a whole other level. Do you think it has something to do with Trump insulting and demeaning their religion or nationality?

Are you ok with spitting on people:rotf3: and sucker punching them:rotf3:

"hate cause you to spit on protesters and sucker punch them"

ME? I beg to differ, sir...no, not you. Worded badly - sorry. should have said "causes people"

"Even leads to campaign managers getting arrested"

I agree Trump is peddling somthing close to hate. On that issue...you-me, same page.

Yes, but look at the % of people who are supporting him.

I'd say the protesters are showing more disgust than hate. Trump's inciting the hate.

Even leads to campaign managers getting arrested.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/29/politics/trump-campaign-manager-charged-with-simple-battery/index.html

Can't make this stuff up. I wonder if Trump is going to cover his legal fees? :lasso:

I'd say the protesters are showing more disgust than hate. Trump's inciting the hate.

RIght, right. So when Hilary says that Republicans are "the enemy", and that we don't care about women's health, and that we want black people to starve to death, and that we all want dirty air and water...none of that fans the flames of hate. Nope. That's just brilliant oration when she does it.

RIght, right. So when Hilary says that Republicans are "the enemy", and that we don't care about women's health, and that we want black people to starve to death, and that we all want dirty air and water...none of that fans the flames of hate. Nope. That's just brilliant oration when she does it.
The difference is she is right. :hihi:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The difference is she is right. :hihi:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yeah, that's hilarious Nebe.

I see protesters - Stupid protesters who should limit themselves to staying outside to protest but spitting and suckerpunching people is at a whole other level. Do you think it has something to do with Trump insulting and demeaning their religion or nationality?

Are you ok with spitting on people:rotf3: and sucker punching them:rotf3:

When someone gets in my face and yells" F you you #unt" my reaction would be to punch them in the teeth . That's not sucker punching . But maybe I'm just not as passive as most .

Oh ... Did you hear there are 147 FBI agents looking into Hillarys emails ?
That's 1% of the FBI looking into something a little more important then some little entitied #^&#^&#^&#^& stirrer getting what he deserves .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

When someone gets in my face and yells" F you you #unt" my reaction would be to punch them in the teeth . That's not sucker punching . But maybe I'm just not as passive as most .

Oh ... Did you hear there are 147 FBI agents looking into Hillarys emails ?
That's 1% of the FBI looking into something a little more important then some little entitied #^&#^&#^&#^& stirrer getting what he deserves .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If they need that many agents looking into this, then the the issue must be small and hard to find. ;)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The hate cause you to spit on protesters and sucker punch them. Even leads to campaign managers getting arrested.

This is BS. A non story
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If they need that many agents looking into this, then the the issue must be small and hard to find. ;)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Given up on Bernie ? 😂
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Or it's completely made up.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Did your chair break again and you hit your head? I am shocked you are actually supporting a Republican or is that the one you want to see win so he is beaten in the general election.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

When someone gets in my face and yells" F you you #unt" my reaction would be to punch them in the teeth . That's not sucker punching . But maybe I'm just not as passive as most .

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
That is not what the old guy did to the guy being led out by the cops. Pure and simple sucker punch.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

This is BS. A non story
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Cops thought there was enough there for an arrest. I didn't see the video
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Cops thought there was enough there for an arrest. I didn't see the video
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You should watch it .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That is not what the old guy did to the guy being led out by the cops. Pure and simple sucker punch.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

73 year old thug . I thought it was funny
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Did your chair break again and you hit your head? I am shocked you are actually supporting a Republican or is that the one you want to see win so he is beaten in the general election.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
My purpose is clarity. I don't think the story is real. Nebe's weld is holding also...

If they need that many agents looking into this, then the the issue must be small and hard to find. ;)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
In a way you've stumbled onto it.

The FBI wants to bring this to a head but given the election needs to do it quickly. They have to show due diligence which requires people power.

I'd wager Buck's math is way off though. The FBI employees over 35,000 people and an agent isn't the same thing as a special agent. That 147 people are in some way involved doesn't' seem to be that big of a deal.

In a way you've stumbled onto it.

The FBI wants to bring this to a head but given the election needs to do it quickly. They have to show due diligence which requires people power.

I'd wager Buck's math is way off though. The FBI employees over 35,000 people and an agent isn't the same thing as a special agent. That 147 people are in some way involved doesn't' seem to be that big of a deal.

The FBI doesn't give a crap about the election .
You missed your calling as a fiction writer as you just make stuff up based in zero fact . I hate to break it to you but the FBI doesn't just throw 147 special agents on an investigation unless there is a good reason .
Actually maybe you should write comedy
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You missed your calling as a fiction writer as you just make stuff up based in zero fact . I hate to break it to you but the FBI doesn't just throw 147 special agents on an investigation unless there is a good reason . Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Funny, you accuse me of fiction then state the 147 number are special agents. Can you cite a source for this that's credible?

Funny, you accuse me of fiction then state the 147 number are special agents. Can you cite a source for this that's credible?

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/03/28/147-fbi-agents-working-on-hillary-clintons-email-investigation/
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Funny, you accuse me of fiction then state the 147 number are special agents. Can you cite a source for this that's credible?

If they need that many agents looking into this, then the the issue must be small and hard to find. ;)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device


For your reading enjoyment.

Funny how some of the counter arguments sound as though from der Kommisar (Spence)

http://www.striped-bass.com/Stripertalk/showthread.php?t=90335

(PS - Spence - I did get that Speedy finally ;) )

My purpose is clarity.




that's as funny as Obama being one of the greatest presidents.....crazy stuff being written here lately...

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/03/28/147-fbi-agents-working-on-hillary-clintons-email-investigation/
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Agent isn't the same thing as special agent, but at least I do find your selection of brietbart as credible a bit ironic.

Agent isn't the same thing as special agent('cause one is "special"), but at least I do find your selection of brietbart as credible a bit ironic.

you need some new refrains....aaaaand....you find Hillary credible :rotf2:

that's as funny as Obama being one of the greatest presidents.....crazy stuff being written here lately...

that's not CRAZY oBAMA is the greatist
at s u c k i n g as president

Funny, you accuse me of fiction then state the 147 number are special agents.



it will only take 1 to slap the handcuffs on her wrists :laugha:

Funny, you accuse me of fiction then state the 147 number are special agents. Can you cite a source for this that's credible?

My bad , I got my information from credible journalist 👍
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

that's not CRAZY oBAMA is the greatist
at s u c k i n g as president

you can only fake it for so long.....

The Fed, with its seven years of zero rates and $3.7 trillion worth of money printing, has faced criticism for being too market sensitive. Citigroup's Lee called Yellen's speech "a remarkable transfer to markets of the FOMC's authority to set future policy rates."

For investors, the question ahead will be how long the Fed can continue to keep the market afloat. Ultra-accommodative monetary policy is showing its limits in other countries, and Yellen's narrative that the dovish tone is being inspired by global weakness, not in the U.S., is gathering skeptics.

"If anything, I would say the global problems have subsided since December," Euro Pacific's Schiff said. "The real problem is the U.S. economy. The U.S. economy is weakening,"

Schiff said he thinks the Fed may attempt a rate hike this year, but any efforts at tightening won't last.

"The economy already is in recession," he said. "The question is, when is the Fed going to acknowledge it."



Jeff Cox
Finance Editor

Take a look at the economy when Obama took office and look at it now. If people actually think that it has become worse under his watch, they have their head so far up their ass they should look up because they might be able to see out their mouth.
It's not humming along like it was in 2000 but it's close.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Take a look at the economy when Obama took office and look at it now. If people actually think that it has become worse under his watch, they have their head so far up their ass they should look up because they might be able to see out their mouth.
It's not humming along like it was in 2000 but it's close.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

the only way to go was up, no one is suggesting it is worse but the pain we'll feel after phonying the numbers for 7+ years may be worse.......if you think continuing to paper over slow growth with zero interests rates and Fed printing of cash will not have serious repercussions..... your head is even further beyond the light of day....if you wonder why the middle class is disappearing...these policies crush the middle class .:soon:

the only way to go was up, no one is suggesting it is worse but the pain we'll feel after phonying the numbers for 7+ years may be worse.......if you think continuing to paper over slow growth with zero interests rates and Fed printing of cash will not have serious repercussions..... your head is even further beyond the light of day....if you wonder why the middle class is disappearing...these policies crush the middle class .:soon:

This.

Most people are not better off today then they were 10 years ago, both parties have contributed to the fuster cluck we are in.

Oh, and 19 Trillion.

Take a look at the economy when Obama took office and look at it now. If people actually think that it has become worse under his watch, they have their head so far up their ass they should look up because they might be able to see out their mouth.
It's not humming along like it was in 2000 but it's close.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Nebe, unemployment is down (WAY down), and the stock market is way up. Good things.

But median wages are lower than when he took office. It's not every day that median wages go down over a 7 year period. He added more debt than all 43 receding presidents combined, I think? And he did nothing, absolutely nothing, to shore up SS and Medicare. More people are on food stamps. I think more people are living in poverty?

There are important measures that are better now. And there are more important measures that are worse.

It's not humming along like it was in 2000 but it's close.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Not even close to 2000.

Oh, and GDP growth (one of the most important measures there is), has been pathetic. Slowest recovery from a recession, ever. Obama owns some of that.

imagine what he could have down without a congress controlled by the GOP who's number one goal was to make him a 1 term president. ;)

Not even close to 2000.

Oh, and GDP growth (one of the most important measures there is), has been pathetic. Slowest recovery from a recession, ever. Obama owns some of that.
You're talking about 2000 right? The year before we entered another recession?

As for GDP growth. I plotted US GDP growth for the last 65 years and the data doesn't show Obama has been pathetic. What it shows is that historically our GDP growth has swung wildly, where aside from the Great Recession (the thing Bush started and Obama inherited) it's been fairly stable and slowly trending downward in a linear fashion.

You're an actuary right? I can email you the data if you want.

imagine what he could have down without a congress controlled by the GOP who's number one goal was to make him a 1 term president. ;)


he'd have spent twice as much

You're talking about 2000 right? The year before we entered another recession?

As for GDP growth. I plotted US GDP growth for the last 65 years and the data doesn't show Obama has been pathetic. What it shows is that historically our GDP growth has swung wildly, where aside from the Great Recession (the thing Bush started and Obama inherited) it's been fairly stable and slowly trending downward in a linear fashion.

You're an actuary right? I can email you the data if you want.

Actually Barney Frank is to blame .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

As for GDP growth. I plotted US GDP growth for the last 65 years



I just spit out my beverage :rotf2:

Actually Barney Frank is to blame .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Oh Jesus...

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/03/31/dow-posts-biggest-quarterly-comeback-since-1933.html
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/03/31/dow-posts-biggest-quarterly-comeback-since-1933.html
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"The Fed, with its seven years of zero rates and $3.7 trillion worth of money printing, has faced criticism for being too market sensitive. Citigroup's Lee called Yellen's speech "a remarkable transfer to markets of the FOMC's authority to set future policy rates."

For investors, the question ahead will be how long the Fed can continue to keep the market afloat. "

I just spit out my beverage :rotf2:

The clothes make him look younger 👍🏻
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You're talking about 2000 right? The year before we entered another recession?

As for GDP growth. I plotted US GDP growth for the last 65 years and the data doesn't show Obama has been pathetic. What it shows is that historically our GDP growth has swung wildly, where aside from the Great Recession (the thing Bush started and Obama inherited) it's been fairly stable and slowly trending downward in a linear fashion.

You're an actuary right? I can email you the data if you want.

"You're talking about 2000 right? The year before we entered another recession?"

Nebe, not I, used 2000 as the baseline to compare to.

"What it shows is that historically our GDP growth has swung wildly,"

GDP growth is volatile. But the best opportunitiues for big GDP growth, are the years following a recession. That's what Obama inherited, a major recession. Normally, following such a recession, is when you see th elargest GDP growth. It didn't happen. It's been called the slowest recovery froma recession, ever.

Here is GDP growth by year. In Obama's 8 years, his best year saw 2.5% growth. His average was 1.29%. Compare that to the 8 years before him, and the 8 years before that, etc...I'm not sure "pathetic" is that far off.

During Obama's 8 years (2008 - 2015), average GDP growth was 1.29%.
Average from 2000-2007 = 2.7%
Average from 92-99 = 3.8%
Average from 81-88 (after the Carter years) = 3.5%

An 8-year average of 1.29%, seems pathetic to me.

There are some global things that the POTUS cannot control. For example, Obama is dealing with more outsourcing of manufacturing jobs than Reagan ever had to dela with. An allowance needs to be made for that.

But in the job Obama sought and received, he owns this.

"the Great Recession (the thing Bush started "

Please tell us what Bush did to "start" this? Bush didn't tell people to take out mortgages they couldn't afford. Bush didn't tell banks to get involved in fishy derivitives and credit default swaps. The repeal of Glass Seagell allowed banks to do these things. That law was written by a GOP congress, and signed by Bill Clinton.

"You're an actuary right?"

Yep. I presume you are not one.

"it's been fairly stable "

Oh sweet Jesus. Obama can't get annual GDP growth above 2.5%, but you give him credit for the fact that it's "stable". That it's pathetically low doesn't bother you, all you care is that it's stable.

So according to your "logic" here...if Obama has GDP growth of exactly 1.3% a year (no swings), that's somehow superior to Clinton, who had an 8 year average of 3.8% (almost 3x Obama's average), because Clinton's years had more volatility?

http://useconomy.about.com/od/GDP-by-Year/a/US-GDP-History.htm

Why do you quote Spence's post and address me?

If you can't even get the facts of this thread right, how can you juggle economic facts :hihi:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Why do you quote Spence's post and address me?

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Because Spence thought it was inappropriate for me to compare the current economy to what it looked like in 2000. But you were the one who did that, not me. I was merely explaining to Spence, that I was responding to what you wrote in post #85..."It's not humming along like it was in 2000 but it's close" - your words...

You have an emoticon, or whatever they are called, for eating crow?

OH OH . . . maybe Cruz is not done :spin:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2IH1fQHdxYU

Here you go Jim, good thing the GOP doesn't have the immoral depravity of the Democrats...

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/04/11/former_co_gop_chair_message_were_sending_is_your_v ote_doesnt_matter_and_your_voice_doesnt_count.html

saw today that cruz's name was found in some madam's book

of course it was a trashy tabloid but it Wouldn't

surprise me in the least

Here you go Jim, good thing the GOP doesn't have the immoral depravity of the Democrats...

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/04/11/former_co_gop_chair_message_were_sending_is_your_v ote_doesnt_matter_and_your_voice_doesnt_count.html

If you thought yuo were going to show me as a hypocrite, guess again. If I were a registered Republican in Colorado, I would be livid. I want Trump to fail to get the nomination, but not at any cost.

This is the opposite of democracy, it's disgusting. And it's exactly what youride is doing in every state, with superdelegates.

Makes me want to take my guns and occupy a bird sanctuary.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

don't forget coffee

Snacks. Can't forget snacks.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Sachuest takeover by Nebe🏋🏼🍺
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Sachuest takeover by Nebe🏋🏼🍺
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I used to drive to the tip down a beat up dirt road and have that whole place to myself as a kid. When I was even younger I used to play in the bunkers out there.
There's a good reason to protest there.. (If you hate change)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

the Great Recession (the thing Bush started and Obama inherited)



just caught my eye.....and I was trying to recall what exactly Bush did to "start the Great Recession" thing ? :smash:

quite an epic mess the next President will be inheriting from Obama...:uhuh:

just caught my eye.....and I was trying to recall what exactly Bush did to "start the Great Recession" thing ? :smash:

quite an epic mess the next President will be inheriting from Obama...:uhuh:

Oh for Christ's sake, did he really say that "Bush" started it?

Spence, in your own words, please expand. Bush forced people to take out reckless mortgages??

The repeal of Glass Seagell (spelling), I think, is what allowed banks to get in the business of swapping these fishy mortgages, derivitives, and credit default swaps and collaterized debt obligations (only Stephen Hawking understands these things). A Republican Congress repealed the restrictions that allowed banks to get into these risky businesses, and Bill Clinton took his wang out of the intern pool just long enough to sign that into law. If that is somehow Bush's fault, I would just love an explanation as to how.

Bush single-handedly caused the 2008 crisis. What did Bush do Spence, to cause this?

And you work in business in some capacity?

Clinton started th Great Recession with Nafta. Bernie frank pushed the mortgage crisis. Bush pushed us into perpetual war.
Screw the establishment.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Bush pushed us into perpetual war.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

And here I thought that the pepole who declared war on us, and brought us to our knees on 09/11, had something to do with that.

And here I thought that the pepole who declared war on us, and brought us to our knees on 09/11, had something to do with that.

You want to go there ?

Please explain in detail how Iraq was connected to 9-11 and how they posed a risk to the safety of the United States. While you are thinking on this take time to consider the outcome if Iraq had no oil.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Waiting
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You want to go there ?

Please explain in detail how Iraq was connected to 9-11 and how they posed a risk to the safety of the United States. While you are thinking on this take time to consider the outcome if Iraq had no oil.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Did I say Iraq? If you're waiting to catch me saying that Iraq was connected to 09/11, be patient, you are in for a long wait.

Yes, oil. So the fact that Saddam agreed to end the first war (which he started, not us), an dthen he failed to live up to the obligations, had nothing to do with it.

Can you answer a question. If it wass all about oil, why did we give Saddam so many chances to avoid war, by fulfilling his obligations? How many warnings did we, and the UN, give him? You can make a compelling case we should not have invaded. I don't think you can make a case it was all about oil. Who got that oil? I mean, we won the war, where did the spoils go?

China got the first dibs at the oil. Now scratch your head on that one.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

China got the first dibs at the oil. Now scratch your head on that one.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
That's not totally true. Nobody got dibs, the difference is that US oil companies need to make a profit where as the Chinese just want to secure the energy. Iraq isn't giving it away for free. I think Bush and Co made a gross over-estimation to the influence the US could really bring.

Funny, you overthrow the dictator to promote democracy...then you have to deal with the democracy.

The fact is... China got the oil first.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The fact is... China got the oil first.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
I think you're missing the point. Oil is a commodity. China was willing to secure contracts because they had a different business plan. Chinese domestic production is shrinking yet they have demand. The US has both domestic production and demand along with a natural gas excess.

Remember bush justified the war by saying "Iraq would pay for the war with their oil"?
What was that all about? I think something went on that we don't know about between bush and China and maybe how we couldn't pay off our debts to them. (Or something like that...). Tinfoil hat is on standby
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Remember bush justified the war by saying "Iraq would pay for the war with their oil"?
What was that all about? I think something went on that we don't know about between bush and China and maybe how we couldn't pay off our debts to them. (Or something like that...). Tinfoil hat is on standby
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
I don't think Bush ever said that, it was Paul Wolfowitz who served under Donald Rumsfeld.

It's interesting that people will have seizures over Benghazi yet totally ignore strategic failures that are order of magnitude larger in scale.

I don't think Bush ever said that, it was Paul Wolfowitz who served under Donald Rumsfeld.

It's interesting that people will have seizures over Benghazi yet totally ignore strategic failures that are order of magnitude larger in scale.

If those strategic failures have been ignored, it is a wonder that we heard (and still hear, apparently) so much about them.

I don't think Bush ever said that, it was Paul Wolfowitz who served under Donald Rumsfeld.

It's interesting that people will have seizures over Benghazi yet totally ignore strategic failures that are order of magnitude larger in scale.

He did say that.. i have a photographic memory.

He did say that.. i have a photographic memory.
Should be easy to find a quote then. I'm not saying the administration didn't promote it, but I don't think Bush ever said it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I can vividly remember him standing behind the podium with that Alfred e Newman stare and big ears saying something along the lines of defending the wars cost and the fact that the Iraqi government would help pay for it wit their oil. I can't search for this with my iPhone but I'm certain. I remember wolfowitz saying this, Cheney said something as well and then Rumsfeld said that the war had nothing to do with oil. LOL.
THE FACT IS... The oil of Iraq was nationalized under saddam and not is is being ectraxted by foreign corporations.

I rest my case.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I think you're missing the point. Oil is a commodity. China was willing to secure contracts because they had a different business plan. Chinese domestic production is shrinking yet they have demand. The US has both domestic production and demand along with a natural gas excess.

stop talking to Eben like he's 4 years old :realmad:

THE FACT IS... The oil of Iraq was nationalized under saddam and not is is being ectraxted by foreign corporations.

I rest my case.


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

never mind....:bl:

Ted Cruz grilled on economics and his tax plan

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=3&v=wDu2fWId8CA

He is head and shoulders above Trump in being able to handle interviews without dodging or filibustering. Maybe head and shoulders above all the other candidates of either party. It's a 40-50 minute interview, but well worth watching.

What scares me the most is that cruz will make decisions based on his religion over what might be best decided in a non biased point of view.
I see bloody wars in our future with Cruz at the wheel
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What scares me the most is that cruz will make decisions based on his religion over what might be best decided in a non biased point of view.
I see bloody wars in our future with Cruz at the wheel
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I didn't see any evidence of what you fear in the video. It was a very rational proposal based on economics, not religion.

BTW, some of the bloodiest wars have been caused by the pseudo-religion of socialism.

Also, the vast majority of his political arguments don't involve religion. And it is amazing how you can call others bigots who point out Islam's incompatibility with our values and secular system of government, yet you have this fear of Christians who have had such a major part of founding and sustaining our secular society. Reagan was as much a Christian as Cruz is, but he didn't make decisions based on his religion. And, rather than starting bloody wars, he helped bring down one of the bloodiest regimes in world history.

I don't see much evidence that American Christian leaders have started wars because of religion. Our wars have been for other reasons.