discussion comment
10 years ago
It is uncanny how accurately this describes our relationship.
-------------------------------------------------------
The article is written by a young thing who likes to date older men. However, there is a difference between dating and sugar-dating. Dating is a kind of mating process between two individuals who share an emotional and physical bond. Sugar-dating involves payment for time and shopping trips -- a genteel form of prostitution.
As always, I'm sure my opinion is of great interest to you!
discussion comment
10 years ago
Nice job, whoever you are. Takes a lot of dedication to turn your life around like that. At 200lbs you will be much healthier -- and losing weight will help you fuck lots of strippers.
discussion comment
10 years ago
(1) You seem to have gotten the economic boom right, but you might just be a broken clock. Not convinced of your genius, yet.
(2) This could be a pump-and-dump scheme. Maybe you know that Twitter is going down in a flaming death-spiral. Don't trust you, one bit.
(3) How could a concept as simple as Twitter have 500M users? Must be ISIS plot, or something.
discussion comment
10 years ago
Sorry about double-post.
discussion comment
10 years ago
"I've certainly found conservative much more genuinely friendly and compassionate on an individual level. "
------------------------------------------------------------
Hard to prove one way or another. The "new" Paul Ryan has coined the phrase "envy economics" which personally makes me sick to my stomach, and I bet he couldn't care less about the poor. In the end, I bet there is no correlation between compassion and party affiliation. Who cares, really?
@Meat says "Or is it Coke? Ha ha, lol!!"
Meat: hard to tell whether you are laughing with me or laughing at me. I can assure you that "Cock(SIC) brothers" was intentional and not auto-correct. The Cock brothers are the poster-child for the problems with wealth inequality. Inherited wealth, the brothers sued each other for daddy's fortune. They are secretive (privately owned company), they use their wealth to fight against things like the minimum wage, and government regulation, and because of Citizen Untied, they are able to legally put almost a billion dollars to sway the next election. David Koch ran earlier as a Libertarian. Eighty billion dollars -- now that's what you call wealth. In fairness, the Dems have plenty rich dudes, too.
discussion comment
10 years ago
"I've certainly found conservative much more genuinely friendly and compassionate on an individual level. "
------------------------------------------------------------
Hard to prove one way or another. The "new" Paul Ryan has coined the phrase "envy economics" which personally makes me sick to my stomach, and I bet he couldn't care less about the poor. In the end, I bet there is no correlation between compassion and party affiliation. Who cares, really?
@Meat says "Or is it Coke? Ha ha, lol!!"
Meat: hard to tell whether you are laughing with me or laughing at me. I can assure you that "Cock(SIC) brothers" was intentional and not auto-correct. The Cock brothers are the poster-child for the problems with wealth inequality. Inherited wealth, the brothers sued each other for daddy's fortune. They are secretive (privately owned company), they use their wealth to fight against things like the minimum wage, and government regulation, and because of Citizen Untied, they are able to legally put almost a billion dollars to sway the next election. David Koch ran earlier as a Libertarian. Eighty billion dollars -- now that's what you call wealth. In fairness, the Dems have plenty rich dudes, too.
discussion comment
10 years ago
^^^ This is stupid, inflammatory shit, but I'll try to answer objectively.
It's true that the Native American claim was never cleared up, but it was also never documented that Warren checked the "Native American" box on her application. If you have such proof, then give a link. If Warren did lie on her application, I agree that it's a very serious charge.
"Great white hope of the liberals" is just inflammatory crap. She has special skills and knowledge of the financial crisis. If you look at the financial crisis with any objectivity, you would appreciate having someone like Warren in the Senate to avoid another crisis in the future.
There are conservatives and liberals that lack compassion; calling all liberals stone-cold motherfuckers just reveals your own lack of objectivity and it's impossible to take anything else you say, seriously.
What a dumbass post.
discussion comment
10 years ago
The perfect dancer is slender, with beautiful eyes.
discussion comment
10 years ago
Yes, I just finished analyzing a set of stochastic differential equations, and it turns out that Warren is indeed in the top 1%. Who gives a fuck? She just has average net worth in the Senate. At least she understands what caused the financial crisis, and she has the balls to stand up to wall street. Otherwise we get an endless stream of clowns blaming the crisis on poor people and the Community Reinvestment Act. After 8 years of misery, you would think her skills would be appreciated. Can't a free-thinking oligarch like yourself appreciate what she has to offer???
The Native American claim bothers liberals -- a lot.
We argue endlessly about where to put the decimal point. The real issue is that wealth is building in the top 0.01% or 0.001%, occupied by people in the financial services industry, who do nothing for society.
So how do you feel about the Cock brothers spending $900M on a single election? Is that the kind of democracy you want?
discussion comment
10 years ago
pocked == pocket
discussion comment
10 years ago
Had to look that one up
--------------------------------------------------
...probably cause you've devoted your entire adult life to bumping your own faggot threads on TUSCL.
Warren never really cleared up the Native American claim and it's a valid criticism, especially if she got affirmative action getting into Harvard.
Still don't understand the "Mega-Rich" bullshit, though. Especially coming from the rich oligarchs of TUSCL ($14M would be pocked change to Douglas).
discussion comment
10 years ago
Calm down, Dougster. Warren is self-made and from a working-class background. She could never win because she's too liberal -- and that has absolutely nothing to do with her net worth.
discussion comment
10 years ago
Liz Warren? $14 million net worth but champion against the 1%?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's not effective snark, Douglas, and I'm quite sure you can do better. Perhaps you're a product of Bloomberg-era schools. Or maybe your vaccines are long overdue.
Net worth of $14M is about average in the Senate and perfectly reasonable for a competent Senator and former Harvard law prof. Her entire net worth is about one-sixtieth of the amount the Koch brothers have raised to influence just the 2016 elections. Glad that Warren is not running because she has zero chance of winning. She understands the wonky elements of the financial crisis and she is better off in the Senate where she can be a specialist and stick to what she knows best. And as the crisis fades away into this boom, we need someone there who understands and remembers what happened.
If you insist on picking on rich hypocrites, then Feinstein might be a better choice. She's filthy rich, married to an investment banker, and speaks out on inequality.
...and off, off-topic, Scott Walker seems to be getting a lot of buzz for 2016.
discussion comment
10 years ago
Just curious, Meat, whether you will be taking social security and Medicare? Are those entitlements you can live with? Maybe we should just send all old people out on a boat and let them die -- since, after all, who said life is fair?
discussion comment
10 years ago
Yeah the jobs report was pretty amazing -- especially the Nov stats revised up to 423k. We're the envy of the world right now. Just look at the deflationary shithole that Europe is trapped in.
So who gets the credit for this economic boom? Dougster? Stevie? Obama? Paul Ryan? Mitch McConnell? Probably the nerds over at the Federal Reserve.
...didn't Skibum rant against Obama ruining the labor market recently? Sure miss his pithy one-liners...
discussion comment
10 years ago
![]()
minnowAny place that interests me.
I don't like censorship either.
Douglas likes to sling faggot jokes all over TUSCL, but I can tell that he's kidding, and he's sometimes funny (at least when he's asleep). In other contexts, calling someone a faggot is offensive for the simple reason that it connotes violence against gays. Archie Bunker was a hit and great satire because he was stupid and not malicious. For that reason, Archie might call someone a queer, but would never call someone a faggot.
discussion comment
10 years ago
"part of the problem is that there really is no line between the so called legitimate finance sector, and the kind of scams of which you speak."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is a very good point, SJC. If only the budding oligarchs here on TUSCL could grasp that point. However, many lose sight of the truth in an orgy of greed and power.
discussion comment
10 years ago
Pretty funny, there, Mikeya.
Too bad Punxsutawney Phil gets more respect (and is taken more seriously) than the average climate scientist.
discussion comment
10 years ago
Actually, Dougsteer, if you (1) happen to be a leading neurosurgeon or (2) just invented the transistor or (3) you came up with the special theory of relativity then 1450% income growth is just fine with me. If you got that income growth by figuring out some clever way to sell fucked-up mortgages as securities, then it's totally reprehensible.
Also, trolls deserve very large income growth (as long as they are sensational trolls and not garden-variety trolls).
Furthermore, calling people "fags" is not PC. Just ask Clubber. Sheesh!!!
discussion comment
10 years ago
^^^You should really be nicer to me Dougsteer. I'm the only one who actually reads your horseshit.
The Bloomberg article doesn't really say much about the tax-avoidance part of the proposal. Let's see about the real details as they unfold.
Mikeya: Thanks for bringing up climate change into a thread about corporate taxes. You're not being clear about whether you believe in climate change, or not??? Maybe you would give a shit if you had kids (like I do).
...back to the game.
discussion comment
10 years ago
Well there's this part:
"Obama wants to lower the corporate tax rate to 28 percent, and 25 percent for manufacturers. Republicans want a 25 percent rate for all corporations."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm sure corporate tax reform is a hot topic for the wannabe-oligarchs here on TUSCL.
We have the second highest corporate tax rate in the world, but our effective tax rate is just a little above average for industrialized nations. The real issue is that we need to clean up tax loopholes if we want to get down to 28% in a revenue-neutral way. I'm cynical that any progress will be made in the face of corporate lobbying from the multinationals, the hedge-funds, the oil&gas industry, etc.. That's just how things work.
Plus, the Obama proposal will probably be DOA in the GOP-controlled Congress, anyway.
discussion comment
10 years ago
Jesus hates Obama. How could that possibly be controversial? LOL!
discussion comment
10 years ago
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqbomTIWCZ8
discussion comment
10 years ago
Cmon Clubber, vaginas are so passé. This is 2015, after all.
discussion comment
10 years ago
![]()
shailynnThey never tell you what you need to know.
*yawn*
...but hope that GoDaddy puts up some sexually-suggestive, raunchy-assed commercial that upsets everyone.