Comments by BobbyI

Founder: you are a hypocrite. Give what you do, i.e. run a board discussing strip clubs including the illegal activities that go on there, censorship should not even pop into your mind for one second. Go ahead and ban Dougster and prove my point. Like you could enforce such a ban anyway. Now, getting back on topic... parodyman--> used to live pretty high on the hog after he got a subprime loan. But that the rate reset, parody lost his job (dishwasher), and squanders his life spitting out vitriol on this board.

Also I said "long term trends since the beginning of the crisis" because I'm sure you'll admit that changes everything.

It wasn't a month old. It was July 12, 2008 before the crisis. If even read your stupid "evidence" before you posted it here you would know that because it was talking about how Fannie and Freddie may need a bailout. You really need to study the charts more and do your homework before you flap your trap here. Quit being such a slacker: one bungled google search isn't going to cut it. Are you so religious in your beliefs that that's all it takes to convince you are right? Do you look at evidence that your beliefs are wrong? Doesn't seem like it to me. "A rebound since the start of the start the crisis". Actually the dollar soared the most at the most intense points of the crisis. If you did your homework your would know this. Anyway, do your homework, look at your religious (Randroidian/Friedmanian or whatever the fuck they are) beliefs critically then maybe we can talk.

Correction: 12.07.08 = July 12, 2008 pre-crisis story.

Oh, jesus. That story is over a month old, a single data point which isn't even a "big player" in the currency market, and was one day action. Talk about cheap sophistry. Try looking at the longer term trends since the beginning of the crisis versus major currencies. Consider this month especially, as talk about the economic stimulus has heated up.

You got it, jablake. Investing in agricultural commodities is definitely the way to go now. Inflation or deflation you will score big.

No chance. The people I knew who jumped into real estate were paying double in mortgages what I was paying rent. Sure they had a big place, but now they are underwater and I get the last laugh. And with the cash I saved? I can plow it into investments which benefit from inflation. Heck, real estate is probably a good one sometime this year once houses start selling for 33 cents on the dollar or whatever they will settle at. (OTOH, I can think of even better investments which will also benefit from the far more likely deflation as well.) Those who bought their overpriced houses? Haha! In debt to the government for life, unless they want to declare bankruptcy, in which case they're (rightfully) screwed for borrowing for future investments. They have no flexibility. They can prey for inflation (the Randroid/Friedmanian wet dream): but I predict stagnation and deflation are far more likely, getting them in even deeper. What are talking about not trusting the US dollar? Why do you think it's doing so well lately? It is trusted. (Partly, ironically because we have huge gold reserve left over from pre-Nixon days.) Yes, I agree "intuitively" the dollar ought to fall since we are ground zero in all this mess. However, people keep forgetting the rest of the world is even more screwed than we are, so it will continue to be a "safe haven".

Oh, and FWIW, some companies have started to look into the real value of the MBS's causing all the trouble. Initial indications are that they have values of about 18 to 24 cents on the dollar.

I also did not buy real estate. knew the market was ridiculously inflated. I also share the indignation that those fools who did are going to be rewarded for their stupidity now with "free houses". OTOH, I do realize that if there hadn't been government action the whole global economy would have collapsed in rapid order. I think Obama explained it well: If your neighbor's house catches fire and it threatens your house as a consequence you don't just let his burn to ground, even if it was his own stupidity which caused the fire in the first place. Believe me, from an ethical perspective I think the people reasonable for this mess (buyers and bankers alike) DESERVE to be standing in soup lines. Unfortunately that would affect everyone else so badly, that I support the bailouts. In any case there are ways for investors to benefit from the recent troubles, so I'm not worried.

The investors weren't in line because the market was in a panic. (Even then remember Warren Buffest investing in Wachovia). There were two points (late oct and late nov) when the market came very close to collapsing altogether. Do you think there was such a panic because "smart investors" were worried that government bailouts would screw up the economy? No, it was because there were no bailouts in sight. The free market itself know that it's just an infant which will get into serious trouble if left on its own. Because of the bailouts the market bounced back, and things didn't spiral out of control. It wasn't so much the money that came in. If you read the actual terms, the government got very good deals. It was more the sense that there was now some leadership, so that the market won't have to fend for itself, but rather have the government to keep an eye on it, making sure it didn't use the rope it had been given in the last decade to hang itself. Anyone who follows the markets day to day now knows they get panicky when it looks like a bailout or other government intervention may not go through, and they get euphoric when there is word of a bailout or other help from the government. The "smart investors" like socialism, hate the market being on its own. Would you say John Paulson is a knowledgeable investor? He is getting in on buying MBS's now (just like the Treasury), which no one would touch before the bailouts. Even he knows the government made a good investment. Why don't you describe what *you* think would have happened if the government had not intervened.

jablake: "I'm supposed to believe the government? " You're supposed to think for yourself. Note that this means not just assuming everything Ayn Rand or Milton Friedman or whomever came up with years ago in the midst of the cold war is gospel. "Look, if it was a good deal then investors from around the world would be lined up to participate in the orgy of profits. " Investors around the world were lined up for treasury bills. The US currency is way up. The banks have rebounded more than other sectors since the bailout. US markets are down less than foreign markets. Next global investor rush will be corporate bonds (all beginning). When the stimulus kicks in, the line up for US profits will intensify.

abreeguy is correct. The "bailouts" are all, in fact, loans rather than give aways. Go to the Treasury website and read the terms. Some loans are super over collateralized (e.g. a $20 billion loan to Citi with $300 billion in collateral). The media bounces around numbers like $8 trillion given away, when they have absolutely no idea what they are talking about. I have no doubt that the taxpayer will make money on each every one. Even in the case of GM, the company least likely to survive, the Treasury made sure they got first class liens as collateral. In fact, I think part of the Treasury's problem (or it might have been Bushs's insistence), until just recently was being overly cautious that the taxpayer would get a good return on investment. This prevented them from by up the toxic MBS's as was the original plan. With the new administration and private funds (e.g. John Paulson and others) getting in on the act it looks like that will final happen. As for the mindless right wingers who post here "absolutely no bailouts". These tools absolutely no idea how hard the economy would have collapsed without the bailouts. The great depression would have been a summer's picnic by comparison. But don't take my word for it. Go read the actual terms of the bailouts for yourself and make up your own mind. Assuming you are not so bound by ideology that you have any capacity left to think for yourself (doubtful in some cases here).

Looks like Clubber (the Dumbest Poster on TUSCL(TM)) has been taking logic lessons from the previous Dumbest Poster on TUSCL (TM) (i.e. MisterGay). Here's an analogy showing why Clubber's logic is so bad: Clubber: Every prime number is odd! (idiotic statement) BobbyI: Two is a prime number do you really think it is odd? (points out the idiocy, but tries to give clubber a way out) Clubber: dipshit, I told you in plain English that *every* prime number is odd. Two is a prime number, so I've clearly stated whether I think it is odd or even. Can't you read? (rejects the way out and buries himself deeper. Thinks talking tough will hide his idiocy) BobbyI: Sorry, I thought you had merely meant every prime number except two, but it looks like you truly are an idiot. (slam dunks the idiot) Clubber: Haha! I addressed "dipshit" what makes you think I was even talking about you? Guess you are one. (pitiful attempt to save face) IDIOT CLUBBER LOSES AGAIN! (Man, this is even easier than picking on MisterGay was)

Phillip: " It basically says that the more you do a random event, the more the outcomes tends toward the expected value." To be pedantic: it's going to tend away from the expected value in terms of absolute value. (1,000,000 coins tosses is expected to have a greater numbers of heads above or below 500,000 than 100 is expected to have a number of heads above or below 50.) Percentage-wise it will tended toward the expected percentage.

Good news, MisterGay. You are no longer the official "Dumbest Poster on TUSCL". Clubber has dethroned you. Congratulations! MISTERGAY LOSES AGAIN BUT CLUBBER LOSES EVEN MORE!

Pretty hostile, aren't you clubber? I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt. But it looks liked you really are stupid enough to think that the correct play on 15 (7+8) vs dealer 10 is to stand. As yank alludes to, there are certain card counting situation in which the correct play is stand, but the vast majority of the time it is a hit. As demonstrated in this thread, as in the thread on the economic collapse, and as when you lost political debates to the previous holder of the title of dumbest poster on TUSCL (MisterGay), you have shown, once again, that you really are a complete idiot. As for "playing for fun" as opposed to make money, how about trying to lose less by playing correctly? Why is that contradictory with fun? Oh wait, I know the answer. It's because you are a complete idiot.

Maybe not 100%. My guess is if you seriously offered, say, $60,000 at least 99.8% would take you up on it. More realistically $1,000, these days, would probably get you at least 90% of them. $300 around 80%. Anytime I've meet a strippers and just had to fuck her, it turned out to be possible, and the prices very reasonable.

Let's get specific here, Clubber. Suppose that you have 15 (a seven and an eight) and the dealer has a 10 showing, what's your play: hit or stand? (To the others, yes I know the correct play, but just want to see what Clubber thinks.)

^^^ More proof, as if any were need, that clubber is a complete idiot.

"Strippers I will always remember" Man, who can even remember them from one visit to the next?

The logic here is mind boggling: Calling someone "gay" is no insult, however, giveitayank must try very hard to demonstrate that he was only kidding, and we must all get upset when someone uses this non-insulting adjective? Yeah, yeah, I've heard the "ignore" promise before. Trust me the ego's of the losers on this board (customers and strippers alike) are far too fragile for that to ever happen.

Unless something changed very recently Gardasil (the HPV vaccine) has not been approved for males yet.

As I did this year, I will continue to smack down any troll who gets out of line on TUSCL. So you little retards better just behave or feel my wrath!

The recession gives us customers a huge advantage over the whores. Let's milk it for all it's worth.

I misread this topic at first: Thought it was "Songs to Trip to".