jennifer government wrote:

NOBODY puts baby in a binder.

Wow, welcome back, Jenn. If George were awake, you'd see this...



Auto-edited on 2020-08-02 to update URLs

jennifer government wrote:

is the devils work

Allow me to introduce you to the possessive apostrophe, Jenny Fuckwad.
                                    ' 
Cool, hunh? It's a marvellous little punctuation mark that educated people who speak English use within sentences to indicate possesssion, as in "the devil's work" or "Jenny Fuckwad's solecisms." See how easy it is to apply? The consequences of not using a possessive apostrophe when it's called for are hardly worth listing, since only hillbillies, dumb cunts and morons would allow their writing skills to devolve to the point of needing such basic instruction. Do read up on possessive apostrophes, sweetie, and attempt to apply them appropriately, to avoid exposing yourself as a dumb cunt again. If that's too much for you, then you should probably kill yourself. Frankly, I'm guessing

WilberCuntLicker wrote:

jennifer government wrote:

is the devils work

Allow me to introduce you to the possessive apostrophe, Jenny Fuckwad.
                                    ' 
Cool, hunh? It's a marvellous little punctuation mark that educated people who speak English use within sentences to indicate possesssion, as in "the devil's work" or "Jenny Fuckwad's solecisms." See how easy it is to apply? The consequences of not using a possessive apostrophe when it's called for are hardly worth listing, since only hillbillies, dumb cunts and morons would allow their writing skills to devolve to the point of needing such basic instruction. Do read up on possessive apostrophes, sweetie, and attempt to apply them appropriately, to avoid exposing yourself as a dumb cunt again. If that's too much for you, then you should probably kill yourself. Frankly, I'm guessing
http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mc14f … o1_400.gif

Oh be quiet.  Jenn is back you idiot.

And some of you wonder why Wilbur is a fucking bore and an unimpressive fit for these parts.

Scotty wrote:

And some of you wonder why Wilbur is a fucking bore and an unimpressive fit for these parts.

Yes Snotty - if I were an impotent old cunt who waves his little boner in public every time the smell of  cunt wafts over the Internet I'd fit in as well as you. You think you're a good fit? You haven't said anything of perspicacity or even general interest as long as I've known you - you just hang around drooling over women you could never attract - an adolescent senior citizen with all the verve and flavour of a stale fart.

Beg to differ on the economy.  Just walk through your local small towns and count the closed stores.  For every one of them, count at least 3-4 people out of work.  Then count the closed plants in your area, and for them add 20-40 people (at minimum) out of work. It's like that all across America, with minor small pockets that are doing OK and the very rare area that's doing well (because of energy production).  It adds up.

The fact is that yes, unemployment numbers are going down - because after a while you get thrown off the rolls, and after 4+ years that's finally coming home to roost with hundreds of thousands no longer able to collect.  But the real unemployment is fucking scary.  I'm sure there's not a single person that visits this board that doesn't know someone out of work or underemployed.

To say the economy is getting better is horribly naive.

Last edited by whosasailorthen (2012-10-17 15:40:04)

Go back to late 2007--people were talking about the second great depression, and general armageddon. I've never in my life seen that level of popular fear about anything economic. If you went back to December 2007 and said "I can give you three years of steady growth and no collapse" the general opinion would have been "I'LL TAKE IT."

Emmeran wrote:

Housing is up: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-1 … -high.html

Consumers are buying:  http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-1 … ember.html

Industrial production is up:  http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-1 … ation.html

It has, of course, occurred to you that Michael Bloomberg is a Democrat and that it's in his best interests to publish glowing figures just before an election where his party is in a tight race, right?

whosasailorthen wrote:

Emmeran wrote:

Housing is up: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-1 … -high.html

Consumers are buying:  http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-1 … ember.html

Industrial production is up:  http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-1 … ation.html

It has, of course, occurred to you that Michael Bloomberg is a Democrat and that it's in his best interests to publish glowing figures just before an election where his party is in a tight race, right?

Bloomberg data is strictly market statistics - this is business after all, the minute it becomes political he loses his incredible cash cow ($1,800 p/month p/terminal); I should also remind you that Michael Bloomberg is Jewish and for him business/money definitely comes before politics.

The economy my friend is basically about the American people meeting the now powerful global markets with the added fun of years of de-regulation.  We need to re-invest in our regulators and stabilize the rules of the game to prevent abuse and we need to figure out how to make that happen at a global level.

I must admit I'm a bit confused by this hard tack to starboard you've taken Sailor; perhaps it's time you navigated towards the center of the flow again, put the wind at your back and turned a blind eye to the maelstroms on the edges.  Those winds you currently follow carry the siren songs from the extreme of each political party, those songs do not lead you towards happiness and joy.  Those sirens sing eternally of panic and fear, even if their people win the elections.

Last edited by Emmeran (2012-10-17 19:14:17)

jennifer government wrote:

Also: I always have a little giggle to myself when Americans complain about fuel prices.

You have to give us a little lee-way there, we don't have public transportation alternatives...

I'm not extreme right, Emm.  I'm still centrist, and I can see both sides.

But in the past 4 years I've had to lay off over half my staff.  That's a lot of families.  And kids.  And pain.  And every time, I had to look that guy or gal in the face when I did it.  And it hurt every damn time. 

Romney may not be the gem we all want - personally, I think he's a dweeb.  But Obama sure ain't a prince or saviour either. 

Romney does have a track record of smart investing... and yes, you can go ahead and point to his few failures as proof he's a failure... but the fact is he got rich knowing how to invest, manage businesses and make money.  And he did turn around the Olympics.  And he did work across the isle in MA to get shit done. 

Obama has never made a profit, never managed a payroll, never (really) worked across the isle... and most importantly, he's never looked an employee in the face when he had to let him go.

And fundamentally, Obama has no real personal friends... does no one think that's bizarre?

whosasailorthen wrote:

I'm not extreme right, Emm.  I'm still centrist, and I can see both sides.

But in the past 4 years I've had to lay off over half my staff.  That's a lot of families.  And kids.  And pain.  And every time, I had to look that guy or gal in the face when I did it.  And it hurt every damn time. 

Romney may not be the gem we all want - personally, I think he's a dweeb.  But Obama sure ain't a prince or saviour either. 

Romney does have a track record of smart investing... and yes, you can go ahead and point to his few failures as proof he's a failure... but the fact is he got rich knowing how to invest, manage businesses and make money.  And he did turn around the Olympics.  And he did work across the isle in MA to get shit done. 

Obama has never made a profit, never managed a payroll, never (really) worked across the isle... and most importantly, he's never looked an employee in the face when he had to let him go.

And fundamentally, Obama has no real personal friends... does no one think that's bizarre?

I'm going to resist the urge to respond in bullet points, it's just not respectful.  Romney's investing precisely mirror's what we do at the PE firm that I work for, not something to laud. My company and Bain are basically corporate loan sharks.  His Olympic-turn around was a government bailout, he had the political connections to get the Fed to clean up the mess (important here) that he inherited when he accepted the position.  I applaud his work to save the Olympics, but that doesn't make it less of a Federal bail-out.

I'm trying to understand this claim that "Obama has no real personal friends", that claim itself is in fact bizarre; where does that come from?

We all get that times have been very hard, we've all had to lay-off very good employees; but did you actually expect a complete global, financial meltdown to be easy? 
And do we really want to rollback regulations again?  Isn't that encouraging the meltdown to happen again?

When I look at Romney's record I like the things he's done in the past, I just cannot abide by the things he saying now.  So far as Obama, I think he's done a pretty good job; I wouldn't give him a big raise but I would extend his work contract.

jennifer government wrote:

You know, peco never did send this to me.  I'm still bitter.

I miss Peco.  He was always the first to call my bluff when I started telling whoppers.

As much as I like the spiky look, I'd prefer you sporting a pair of huntsmen.  I wonder if they make your nipples hard?



Auto-edited on 2020-08-02 to update URLs

opsec wrote:

As much as I like the spiky look, I'd prefer you sporting a pair of huntsmen.  I wonder if they make your nipples hard?

I'll try later tonight and get back to you on that.

Emmeran, I saw a prostitute at a bus stop the other night.  Two birds, one stone?

whosasailorthen wrote:

http://www.cnbc.com/id/49460659

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 … our-years/

Yeah, things are going swimmingly.  This confirms what I am seeing.

And you think putting party that caused this mess back in charge is going to help???

Emmeran wrote:

whosasailorthen wrote:

http://www.cnbc.com/id/49460659

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 … our-years/

Yeah, things are going swimmingly.  This confirms what I am seeing.

And you think putting party that caused this mess back in charge is going to help???

It always amazes me that people get away with blaming or congratulating incumbents for the general state of an economy. Unemployment arguments are particularly suspect because causality is rarely specified. Find out why people are unemployed, beyond the easy answer of "lack of demand for labour" and you'll have a better idea of the historical factors, cycles and timelines involved. Economies in transition can be plagued by mismatched expectations, needs and resources, and take decades to sort themselves out. Any politician who vows to "turn the economy around" is stupid or opportunistic - as is evidenced by the speed with which those same politicians throw up their hands and blame the policies of former administrations for their inability to make good on their  promises. Frankly, Sailor, I'm also a bit surprised by your newfound ability to stomach a political party that stands foursquare for lying, cheating, selfishness, and the abrogation of every progressive policy enacted in your country over the last 50 years. Even if your read on economics is correct, the neo-con "moral" bullshit you're inviting into your private lives is as rational and savoury as a crowd of drunken peasants with pitchforks. Hell, man wake up - if Fnord is willing to vote for a nigger incumbent, there's gotta be something enormously wrong with the challenger.

Emmeran wrote:

whosasailorthen wrote:

http://www.cnbc.com/id/49460659

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 … our-years/

Yeah, things are going swimmingly.  This confirms what I am seeing.

And you think putting party that caused this mess back in charge is going to help???

It's not about party for me.  I'm not blindly following any party.  Bush was a fuckwad... I think that's pretty clear.  But every party has fuckwads.... after all, would you support Harry Reid for president?  How about Anthony Weiner or Charles Rangel?

The question is not which party can do the job - the 'party' won't be commander in chief... the question is which man or woman running for office can do the job.

Based on the past performance of both individuals, I believe Romney can do the job better.

Look, we all know that Romney had to pretend to lean hard right to appease his 'party' and get the nomination.  Half of what he said was utter bullshit, given his past practices.  Unfortunately, that's the way candidates for all parties have to play the game in this screwed up system of ours - you gotta play to your 'base' whatever the hell that is, in order to get a ticket on the presidential carousel.  But let's not forget, the Republican party 'base' - those fucking right-wingnuts hated this guy at first... he wasn't 'right' enough... go back and read FreeRepublic and the volumes of visceral hate speech they fired against Romney... but he's their only horse now and they gotta ride him, like it or not. 

The fact is Romney is a moderate and has led in the past like a moderate.  Look at his record in MA - it's pretty clear he worked with both sides of the isle.  And we need more moderates.  Lots more.  They work with the other side and fundamentally get important shit done, instead of sitting in an entrenched fetal position, unwilling to compromise.  Fundamentalists like we have now do nothing but argue endlessly over who's gonna paddle and who said what to whom... whilst the ship is rapidly sinking.

Clinton was a moderate.  He was a good man.  He worked with the other side and found common ground.  He got important shit done. 

I believe Romney will, too.

Last edited by whosasailorthen (2012-10-18 16:23:14)

No, neither of them has articulated a plan, because they BOTH know that the plan to get us out of this mess is gonna be very painful.  If either one tips his hand and tells us even a small part of the plan, the other will jump all over it like white on rice.  It's political suicide to tell your plan.

Obama had a chance with his plan.  He failed to produce a budget in 3 years, let alone a balanced one.  And the first two years he OWNED congress.  I'm sorry.  He had his chance to make a budget and implement serious change.  Time for a businessman to step up.

Last edited by whosasailorthen (2012-10-18 17:47:11)

whosasailorthen wrote:

No, neither of them has articulated a plan, because they BOTH know that the plan to get us out of this mess is gonna be very painful.  If either one tips his hand and tells us even a small part of the plan, the other will jump all over it like white on rice.  It's political suicide to tell your plan.

Obama had a chance with his plan.  He failed to produce a budget in 3 years, let alone a balanced one.  And the first two years he OWNED congress.  I'm sorry.  He had his chance to make a budget and implement serious change.  Time for a businessman to step up.

You're not making much sense, Sailor. If your concern was the stock market I might agree with you, but a little ratiocination should illuminate the fact that businessmen are less fit than anyone else to tackle unemployment, because they value it - highly. Without a standing pool of unemployed workers there are numerous problems from the business perspective, the two most salient of which are: one; capitalism demands a large, mobile and available workforce to draw from, and two; increased employment puts upwards pressure on wages and gives strength to unions. In fact, one of the likely reasons for economic hard times and the resulting hike in dole rates is simply regime change, and consequent abutment of radically differing economic policies. You cannot judge an economic plan in 4 years. I repeat (because I suspect you're having a temporary problem with your cognitive functions): you cannot judge an economic plan in 4 years. If you vote in the dark side, and you see broad economic improvement during its tenure, it will have nothing to do with your new love-interest or his policies, no matter how hard you and he pat yourselves on the back. What he will be dictating is how your tax dollars are spent vis-à-vis social issues - abortion, drugs, free speech, fair elections, foreign relations - that's what your vote is really responsible for. Imagining that you're voting for "a better economy" is childlike.

He OWNED congress?  Really?  Every piece of legislation was filibustered by 40+ Senate republicans.  Only on those pieces where one or more crossed the aisle did was the filibuster overcome.  Beyond that, there was no way under the sun, given the economy as it then existed, that anyone in his right mind would have placed deficit reduction on the front burner at that time -- neither republican nor democrat.  Nor would Romney have done so.

Don't imagine for a minute that being a "businessman" is the be-all end-all.  Herbert Hoover was a businessman.

WilberCuntLicker wrote:

While I'm not in favour of pointless regulation, not all regulation is pointless - some of it is for the greater good (if you can imagine that a greater good exists outside of profit). Less regulation and more profit is not necessarily good for your country, and does not necessarily ensure a better economy or lower unemployment.

I thoroughly enjoyed hearing the anti-regulation crowd scream about the NFL referee's this year, apparently they hate regulation - except when poor regulation causes their football team to lose.

I still firmly believe that Capitalism, because of the very fact that it fosters fierce competition (a good thing), requires robust and well funded regulatory agencies (a necessary evil).

Last edited by Emmeran (2012-10-18 19:04:27)

Your economy ran well for decades because you had hundreds of millions of hard-working peasants who were happy to move up the ladder, and delighted with the fruits of their labour. Things are different now. You need to change. You need to educate. You need to adapt. Running backwards to an unregulated economy will just move you back into the dirty old 19th century with all its ugly problems - a new 3rd world country in the making.