Yeah, I know. This site is about endless variations of dealing with strippers, whores, clubs, etc. But this latest news about what happened in Libya puts me in a crap mood. Former presidents would have surrounded the area with gunships and rain holy hell on the creeps who killed American citizens. Now we don't want to offend the world with our military? Fuck that shit!
Aren't runng strip clubs and prostitution capital offenses in Libya and many other middle eastern countries? Little things like that make me never want to visit those places.
I worked in Algeria and Saudi Arabia in the 1970s. Algeria was not so bad; it had a residue of French culture from colonial times. Saudi was an entirely different matter. The most miserable year of my life was in that god-forsaken country. I made a pile of bux but the misery was just not worth it. I would kill myself before setting foot in that country again.
It really annoys me that you Americans suck up to the miserable Saudis for their oil and screw us Canadians over pipelines at the same time. Don't you realize that it was Saudi assholes that did the 9/11 atrocity? You guys should have nuked Riyadh and Mecca in immediate retaliation.
We know the Saudis were involved, farmerart, in the 9/11 attacks. Nuking Saudi Arabia in retaliation would have been overkill. I personally am not at all happy with the killing of that pipeline. I'm very liberal in my politics and thing a grievous error was made in that decision. I don't doubt retribution for the Libyan attack is planned.
Possibly. As far as the Keystone pipeline, they should have let phase 3 go through, since the whole debate was over the phase 4 shortcut and Nebraska farmers and the Ogallala Aquifer.
I doubt that Obama would lose the election because of the Libyan massacre. I would bet he wins reelection, it takes a lot to unseat a current President.
We know Saudis were involved, but that's a lot different than "the Saudis". The royal family gives us a lot more than oil and we'll do whatever we can to protect that relationship.
If we want to have embassies and consuls in war torn nations they should be heavily protected by both our military and the country they're in. Otherwise we're throwing away lives.
The World, for better or worse, is VERY interconnected and the US nor any other country can act in isolation without causing possible detrimental ripples throughout the rest of the World. We must act in concert with others.
As long as the other countries know who the fucking conductor is, that'll work great. Unfortunately, all those other dumbfuck countries they think the orchestra would be nothing without them, and that their own instrument should be the loudest one playing.
Only the U.S. is qualified to lead the world.
Ok, maybe not with dipshits like Obama and Romney in charge. Hell, *I* could do a better job than both of them put together...
I wouldn't be very interesting at all, nothing would get done because Congress would block every thing I would try to do.
Simplify tax code. Decrease spending on everything and I mean everything. Let the post office fend for itself. Kick dead-weight contractors to the curb. Tell the U.N. to go fuck themselves. Stop giving money to countries that don't make it clear they're on our side.
We tried the rain holy hell on them approach in Iraq and Afghanistan. Didn't really turn out all that well, did it? Meanwhile in Libya the government has allowed in a team of FBI investigators, has arrested dozens, and the citizens themselves protested against the radicals and overran their base.
Just because you have the world's biggest hammer doesn't mean you should be hammering in the screws instead of using a screwdriver.
Of course raining holy hell works. It's when we stop doing it that things don't go well,i.e, troops on the ground. And what? Libya is now our pal after the fact?
We can't afford the gas to get there this country is broke as shit. The U.S. should us spies and assassination fuck the boots in the sand shit its hot then a motherfucker out there. I work daily with soldiers coming home with PTSD from CQC and IEDs blowing up everywhere. Troops go in as last resort not to make a point to some assholes that can be dealt with much easier and cheaper. Hell it wasn't even a lot of people who died nobody gets this worked up if 10 or 20 people are murdered in L.A. Or Chicago.
Look into it some more. Doesn't look like there is enough to tie the inaction back to the president yet. Maybe they can before election day, but not much time. Or maybe the suspicion is greater than the reality.
I'm a little divided on who I want to see president (so much about both of them I don't like, but both also have their pluses) but I am leaning more and more toward Romney as we close in on election day.
Looks like it's going to be really close, and down to the wire. "47%" didn't sink Romney like I thought it would.
All that I know about US presidents is that Republican presidents are death to the stock market and Democrats are pure gold for the stock market.
Dubya killed the markets for his 8 years. Obama has brought the markets back nicely. Dubya's dad did his best to create a recession and the markets reacted as expected. Clinton restored competence and optimism such that the 1990s were just superb in the markets. Reagan gave us 20% interest rates and the market meltdown of 1987. Nixon gave us the 570 point Dow in 1974 (the single best buying moment in my lifetime).
If an investor has the stones to stomach the Republican economic mismanagement great buying opportunities are created. Take a look at the big equity positions in Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway. Many of those positions were established on during 1973/1974 when Nixon slaughtered the stock market. Buffett was absolutely shitting himself in unbounded glee at the bargains available in the market that the idiot Nixon cratered.
I had little cash back then but I did buy a few shares of Philip Morris and still hold the position. Stock splits, reinvested divvys, and capital appreciation has turned my original $4k into something approaching $200k. Many thank to idiot Nixon (and all you smokers).
One of the theories going around is that the market's (especially) poor performance the last few weeks is due to the polls showing an increasing chance of a Romney victory.
I think that if Romney does get in farmerart's prediction would be filled with a vegence. Romney has made it pretty clear that he is looking to fire Bernanke (the market's sugar daddy)'s ass as soon as he gets the chance.
I agree, the perception that the markets were destroyed by Republicans is misguided. The market was crashing before Bush even stepped foot in the White House, March of 2000, I believe.
I am anti government spending so, I want a new POTUS. I also think the health care situation was ridiculous.
In my overblown language the real point of my argument seems to have missed you. I am not arguing about the reasons why things happen in markets just the fact that things DO happen. What is irrefutable is the observable, bare, stark numbers. The level of the various stock indices (S&P 500, NASDAQ Composite, Dow 30, Wilshire 5000) on one particular presidential inauguration day and the level of the same indices on a different inauguration day. No person can logically deny the effect of a change in party on events in the USA. Therefore, the correlation between those numbers and the party of the sitting president simply cannot be denied and must be one of the facts upon which investment decisions will be based.
Successful investing winnows all the chaff of emotion and bias from the pure grains of data, logic, and simple arithmetic.
@Che:
The shot at Canada's health care system is exactly what I am describing, a debating point based on anecdotal fantasy. I can fire just as many anecdotes back to you of Americans crossing the border to access Canadian medical services. Referrals from USA to neurosurgeons in Edmonton and Montreal. Vain American actresses coming to a Vancouver plastic surgeon. Thousands of American citizens crossing the border for pharmaceuticals. Princess Margaret Hospital in Toronto draws cancer sufferers from USA (and from all over the world) for treatment not available elsewhere. American women flood into Canada for abortions.
All these have no use in a logical debate.
How about these data points of hard numbers for a more serious debate:
Life expectancy - about 2-3 years longer in Canada vs. USA
Infant mortality - measurably lower in Canada (deaths per 100k live births about one third lower)
GDP allocation to health care - ~11% in Canada vs. ~18% in USA
I'll happily take my chances with the Canadian medical care system, thank you very much.
43 comments
Latest
It really annoys me that you Americans suck up to the miserable Saudis for their oil and screw us Canadians over pipelines at the same time. Don't you realize that it was Saudi assholes that did the 9/11 atrocity? You guys should have nuked Riyadh and Mecca in immediate retaliation.
If we want to have embassies and consuls in war torn nations they should be heavily protected by both our military and the country they're in. Otherwise we're throwing away lives.
As long as the other countries know who the fucking conductor is, that'll work great. Unfortunately, all those other dumbfuck countries they think the orchestra would be nothing without them, and that their own instrument should be the loudest one playing.
Only the U.S. is qualified to lead the world.
Ok, maybe not with dipshits like Obama and Romney in charge. Hell, *I* could do a better job than both of them put together...
1. gmd
2. Dougster
3. jerikson40
4. Che
5. VH_KICKS
You get my drift. Hmm....
Simplify tax code. Decrease spending on everything and I mean everything. Let the post office fend for itself. Kick dead-weight contractors to the curb. Tell the U.N. to go fuck themselves. Stop giving money to countries that don't make it clear they're on our side.
You forgot to add yourself to that list.
(Are you freezing your ass off in the North 40 yet? Keep that oil coming!)
Just because you have the world's biggest hammer doesn't mean you should be hammering in the screws instead of using a screwdriver.
I'm a little divided on who I want to see president (so much about both of them I don't like, but both also have their pluses) but I am leaning more and more toward Romney as we close in on election day.
Looks like it's going to be really close, and down to the wire. "47%" didn't sink Romney like I thought it would.
Dubya killed the markets for his 8 years. Obama has brought the markets back nicely. Dubya's dad did his best to create a recession and the markets reacted as expected. Clinton restored competence and optimism such that the 1990s were just superb in the markets. Reagan gave us 20% interest rates and the market meltdown of 1987. Nixon gave us the 570 point Dow in 1974 (the single best buying moment in my lifetime).
If an investor has the stones to stomach the Republican economic mismanagement great buying opportunities are created. Take a look at the big equity positions in Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway. Many of those positions were established on during 1973/1974 when Nixon slaughtered the stock market. Buffett was absolutely shitting himself in unbounded glee at the bargains available in the market that the idiot Nixon cratered.
I had little cash back then but I did buy a few shares of Philip Morris and still hold the position. Stock splits, reinvested divvys, and capital appreciation has turned my original $4k into something approaching $200k. Many thank to idiot Nixon (and all you smokers).
I think that if Romney does get in farmerart's prediction would be filled with a vegence. Romney has made it pretty clear that he is looking to fire Bernanke (the market's sugar daddy)'s ass as soon as he gets the chance.
I am anti government spending so, I want a new POTUS. I also think the health care situation was ridiculous.
In my overblown language the real point of my argument seems to have missed you. I am not arguing about the reasons why things happen in markets just the fact that things DO happen. What is irrefutable is the observable, bare, stark numbers. The level of the various stock indices (S&P 500, NASDAQ Composite, Dow 30, Wilshire 5000) on one particular presidential inauguration day and the level of the same indices on a different inauguration day. No person can logically deny the effect of a change in party on events in the USA. Therefore, the correlation between those numbers and the party of the sitting president simply cannot be denied and must be one of the facts upon which investment decisions will be based.
Successful investing winnows all the chaff of emotion and bias from the pure grains of data, logic, and simple arithmetic.
@Che:
The shot at Canada's health care system is exactly what I am describing, a debating point based on anecdotal fantasy. I can fire just as many anecdotes back to you of Americans crossing the border to access Canadian medical services. Referrals from USA to neurosurgeons in Edmonton and Montreal. Vain American actresses coming to a Vancouver plastic surgeon. Thousands of American citizens crossing the border for pharmaceuticals. Princess Margaret Hospital in Toronto draws cancer sufferers from USA (and from all over the world) for treatment not available elsewhere. American women flood into Canada for abortions.
All these have no use in a logical debate.
How about these data points of hard numbers for a more serious debate:
Life expectancy - about 2-3 years longer in Canada vs. USA
Infant mortality - measurably lower in Canada (deaths per 100k live births about one third lower)
GDP allocation to health care - ~11% in Canada vs. ~18% in USA
I'll happily take my chances with the Canadian medical care system, thank you very much.
Watch hockey? They have to LIVE hockey! :)
I used to hold Panther season tickets till they moved north. Love hockey, but it is not watchable on TV, IMHO.
Yes, last I heard the games are cancelled through November.