Comments
163,381 - 163,400 of 173,285 Comments Last updated 6 hrs ago
Lost In Transition

Stillwater, OK

#171084 Oct 31, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
You're silly, Missy Putty.
The answer was about four.
Unless my math is getting shaky, in which case it's some other number and I deny ever making this post.
Lost In Transition

Stillwater, OK

#171086 Oct 31, 2013
Chris Clearwater wrote:
<quoted text>Time will indeed tell. 237 years into this experiment. It has done wonders. I've met enough people that have lived in unspeakable bondage to know we've been a success.
Can we again?
Sure we can. Sometimes ya just gotta wash, rinse and repeat.
Lost In Transition

Stillwater, OK

#171087 Oct 31, 2013
bad bob wrote:
<quoted text>
Not only amazing LIT, but if actually implemented, could be the beginning of the end.
The fact that such action is even considered a viable option by central banks is mind boggling. Even more mind boggling is their putting it in writing. Goofs.
I suppose Cyprus wouldn't be surprised, though.
Lost In Transition

Stillwater, OK

#171088 Oct 31, 2013
NEWS-FLASH wrote:
<quoted text>
It's always darkest before the storm.
I think we're in the middle of it. The front wall hit us in '08, and Bernanke is burning up all our fuel trying to hold us in the eye. Eventually the engines will run dry and we'll be sitting ducks for the counter rotation. Good times ahead.
Lost In Transition

Stillwater, OK

#171089 Oct 31, 2013
Lyndi wrote:
<quoted text>
If the GOP doesn't screw up this enormous opportunity, I'm confident in 2014 and in 2016 they can send liberals packing and begin the process of undoing the mess left behind by Obama and his likeminded cronies and get back to business.
Not sure the GOP has the conservatives needed to pull it off. Not sure it can even be pulled off. We'll need another Volker at the Fed, and a Reagan willing to shoulder the pain. Pretty tall order.
UIdiotRACEMAKEWO RLDPEACE

United States

#171090 Oct 31, 2013
Lost In Transition wrote:
<quoted text>
Sure we can. Sometimes ya just gotta wash, rinse and repeat.
When detergent runs out to wash off the bloody stain? Guilty as prescribed! Empire Rise , Wane and Fall! Yes, No or maybe, or i have not a clue? ABhbahahaaaa
Lost In Transition

Stillwater, OK

#171092 Oct 31, 2013
UIdiotRACEMAKEWORLDPEACE wrote:
<quoted text>When detergent runs out to wash off the bloody stain? Guilty as prescribed! Empire Rise , Wane and Fall!
Yes, No, or maybe, or i have not a clue? ABhbahahaaaa
I'm gonna go with choice #4.
:)
UIdiotRACEMAKEWO RLDPEACE

United States

#171093 Oct 31, 2013
Lost In Transition wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm gonna go with choice #4.
:)
Ok Sheeeeople! ABhaHAHAHAAAA

Since: Dec 07

Location hidden

#171094 Oct 31, 2013
Lyndi wrote:
<quoted text>
He's such an a$$. Showing up in Boston & tangling up traffic more with his stupid motorcade on the day of a World Series game.

People were in dual celebration mode and still remembering the loss of those in the Boston marathon bombing- a big day in the city and here comes the ding-dong in chief.

"Hey, it's all about ME!"

No Barry, it isn't ALL about you.

Boston Strong.
Obama doesn't have a clue what yesterday meant to that city. How pathetic is that....
It's politics, it doesn't have to be anything, it just has to be political.

I'm guessing roughly half of the crowd peed their pants!
And the other half sh*t theirs!
HipGnozizzz

Altona, IL

#171095 Oct 31, 2013
Lyndi wrote:
<quoted text>No, you don't know the numbers or you'd never make such a ridiculous comment. You also evidently, are unaware of the vast difference in percentages between generational dependance and situational dependence and those differences can be best exemplified through pictorials when you look into families, neighborhoods, communites, town and cities where the decay, poverty and hopelessness have been staples for -----> generations.
Oh, well, ok when you rebut with....numbers...like...that. ......Hey! Wait a minute! You didn't rebut with anything.

Hint for the future: I wouldn't say it if I couldn't back it. The percentage of people who remain on welfare for more than five years stands at just under 20%. Conversely, over 80% utilize the safety net for less than five years; 1 out of 3 for less than a year. I don't see where it makes sense for a wealthy and enlightened nation not to help 8 of 10 of their own people over a rough patch merely because 2 of 10 are so-called "dependent". Address the 20%, don't trash the whole program.

The majority don't want charity, they just need a hand in a system that's pretty rough for the less-advantaged, and in the meantime virtually every dollar received circulates right back into the local economy. This is exactly why Wal-Mart is a major supporter; well, that and many of their employees are also eligible because.....business won't pay a fair wage to those who >do< want to work, which is the other edge of the sword that working class people are contending with.

You'll note the major difference between your argument and mine is that yours rests on emotion derived from provocative images, and mine relies on actual facts.
Lyndi wrote:
<quoted text>You also I guess didn't get the memo that today in the United States, 72% of all babies born to in the African American community are born to unwed mothers
Hmm. Since unwed pregnancies are a problem across the board, I'm really not sure why we've paired up "African-American babies" with "large and looming issue"?

uhhh......ah, leave it.
Lyndi wrote:
<quoted text>so your comment about "divorced woman with children in difficult straits thru no fault of their own," doesn't remotely address that large and looming issue.
Nor was it intended to. I merely moved the topic beyond abstract "images" and offered a positive first-hand experience. I believe it's simplistic to think that these children are being born as a calculated ploy to attain more benefits. You've cited a societal problem, not a welfare problem. You think them kids are gonna quit rootin' around just because they might not get a check?

That's a tough one, I agree. What are we gonna do about it? Looks to me like handing out the Pill with school lunches would be a cheap idea all around, if you really want to get started fixin' it, but guess who's blockin' that kind of fix?
Lyndi wrote:
<quoted text>I like your confidence when you know what you're talking about. I don't like it when you don't and if you suspect I'd go at ramming speed to hold liberalism accountable for a ton of these woes, you'd be absolutely correct.

On other fronts?
My Red Sox won
Yeah, that was bittersweet, I guess, since many friends are Card fans, but hey, I'm a Cub fan, so.....;)
Lyndi wrote:
<quoted text>Mitt Romney blasted Obama yesterday.
Who? Mitt? What kind of name is "Mitt"? Ain't that the rich snob that dated Muffy in Animal House?
Lyndi wrote:
<quoted text>The White House is in panic mode.
And well they should be. Glad of it.

Gee, wonder what they could get done in the next couple years if they quit mealy-mouthing about bi-partisanship and played hard-ball Republican-style? Ooooh, son.......a boy can dream, can't he?
Lyndi wrote:
<quoted text>And Ted Cruz has changed his tune.
It's a good day in Lyndi-land.
That's all that counts, ain't it?
HipGnozizzz

Altona, IL

#171096 Oct 31, 2013
Lost In Transition wrote:
<quoted text>
My guess is I've read as much about our founding as the average guy that knows just enough to be dangerous. I find that interpreting the writings that founded this nation is very similar to interpreting the writings that founded our monotheistic religions. You ask 5 people for their take on a passage, and you'll get 6 opinions. So I seldom debate those opinions out of anything more than an honest curiosity and a glance into their reasoning.
Ho now, hold on there. We ain't talkin' about dead languages mashed through multiple translations and transliterations. These guys were talking on-point and in the same language we use today, albeit with an annoying penchant for albeits and run-on sentences. I heartily agree there's a whole lot of quote-mining goes on today, which is why I asked if you'd read them in total.

We hear a whole lot of talk, esp. among quasi-libertarians and TPers about "getting back to the Founder's intent". What are they talking about - a confederation rather than a republic? Suffrage only for the white landed gentry? Certain, uh, "imported property" equals 3/5 of a vote? Primogeniture? Parliamentary monarchy? No standing army? All this and more were among the "Founder's original intent", no interpretation necessary.

Likewise, I think my question was pertinent relative to your statement about original intent of "we" vs. "they".
Lost In Transition wrote:
<quoted text>"They" is the largest special interest group on the face of the planet. They specialize in self-promotion, self-enrichment and, above all, self-preservation. Because they's special interest is they. I used to think of they as a giant corporation, but that gives them way too much cred. They produce nothing, and in that process consume more capital than any corporation on the face of the planet. I don't believe that is what was intended for they, but it's certainly what they've become. IMO.
I think we could fix that. Term limits, harsh lobbying restrictions and revolving door policy, public-financed elections, restricted campaign seasons, and so on. I think we'd rather fuss than do so. Shoot, with Citizens United, were going even further backward, and half the country think it's no big deal.
Lost In Transition wrote:
<quoted text>As for obamacare (sorry, I can't call it the AFFORDABLE care act for obvious reasons), it's off and running. And I'm good with that. During the back and forth idiocy of the government funding debate I said the one thing the Repubs should push for is NO exemptions. Not big business, not the individual, not obama's pals. Let this thing play out full throttle, and let the people witness the ride. I believe it's gonna end in a nasty wreck, but sometimes pain is only way to learn. Then hopefully we can get back to the two real problems, cost and the truly destitute, which I'm afraid will both be bigger problems than before we "fixed" them.

Sorry about chopping your post, ran out of pixels.
No worries. I agree, let 'er ride, see how she shakes out.

I believe that's exactly what the opposition fears.
Chris Clearwater

Chicago, IL

#171097 Oct 31, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Clearwater laughs?
Most days. Even managed to get a few in back in Feb when I was in the hospital. Those cute nurses shaving me and I'm so darn tickelish. Even wife busted up.

“Custer @ LBH - Ooops”

Since: Nov 07

Bakersfield, CA

#171098 Oct 31, 2013
HipGnozizzz wrote:
<quoted text><quoted text> I believe it's simplistic to think that these children are being born as a calculated ploy to attain more benefits. You've cited a societal problem, not a welfare problem. You think them kids are gonna quit rootin' around just because they might not get a check?
Not sure what planet you been visiting, but here on earth, there's no question that women (white, hispanic and black) are blatant baby factories keyed to increasing their gov't checks. And many of them are not even remotely afraid to admit it. Our local welfare office, which is pretty good size, is swamped with people Mon thru Fri, all year, every year, and year after year with absolutely no end in sight. Been that way as long as I can remember.

Disability claims have also increased big time. There was a study done
several years ago (source unknown) which clearly defined the percentage
of Americans claiming disability up to a particular year, and factoring in employment, on-the-job claims, etc.

Then the claims went thru the roof. There's just NO possible way that
the percentage of honest claims could skyrocket in the designated time period. More gov't taxpayer funded s-c-a-m-s.

“Custer @ LBH - Ooops”

Since: Nov 07

Bakersfield, CA

#171099 Oct 31, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Clearwater laughs?
Chris has been on this thread years longer than you, yet you choose to base yer silly comments on a series of serious msgs.

If I didn't know either of you, I'd take CC's posts over your juvenile
one-liners and personal insults ANYtime.

Suggest you get someone to help you yank yer one-track mind outta your
sorry azz, and either say something useful, stfu, or stay over on the religious thread where all the posters hang on your every word.

Since: Dec 07

Location hidden

#171100 Oct 31, 2013
HipGnozizzz wrote:
<quoted text>
QE ad infinitum is monetarist policy, not Keynesian.
Your chickens are barking up the wrong tree.
Identical Sides of the Same Adolescent Coin
http://www.forbes.com/sites/johntamny/2013/04...

Central Planning by any other name is still Central Planning.
To Big to Fail?

"OUR" chickens have the right tree.

Since: Dec 07

Location hidden

#171101 Oct 31, 2013
Lost In Transition wrote:
<quoted text>
I think we're in the middle of it. The front wall hit us in '08, and Bernanke is burning up all our fuel trying to hold us in the eye. Eventually the engines will run dry and we'll be sitting ducks for the counter rotation. Good times ahead.
Most excellent description!
lisw

Georgetown, OH

#171102 Oct 31, 2013
Hip wrote:
"Address the 20%, don't trash the whole program"

Brilliant! I feel the same way. 15% of the US did not have insurance. Why didn't we address that 15% instead of trashing the whole program???
UIdiotRACEMAKEWO RLDPEACE

United States

#171103 Oct 31, 2013
bad bob wrote:
<quoted text>
Chris has been on this thread years longer than you, yet you choose to base yer silly comments on a series of serious msgs.
If I didn't know either of you, I'd take CC's posts over your juvenile
one-liners and personal insults ANYtime.
Suggest you get someone to help you yank yer one-track mind outta your
sorry azz, and either say something useful, stfu, or stay over on the religious thread where all the posters hang on your every word.
I been here longer then you, you go and catcher stays! ABAHAHAHAHhahaaa And you most time offer stupidity! ABhahahahaaaa

Since: Dec 07

Location hidden

#171104 Oct 31, 2013
This could be the largest Fed stimulus yet
By Annalyn Kurtz @AnnalynKurtz October 28, 2013: 12:51 AM ET
http://money.cnn.com/2013/10/28/news/economy/...

QE3 is on track to be its largest bond-buying program yet, if it follows the path predicted by Wall Street.

"There is a danger that the Fed has missed its window of opportunity," Ashworth said in a note. "If it's waiting for some degree of fiscal certainty, this really could turn into QEternity."

“The longer QE continues, the more dramatic stocks could fall once the end of stimulus is in sight.”

http://chiotsrun.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/...
HipGnozizzz

Altona, IL

#171105 Oct 31, 2013
lisw wrote:
Hip wrote:
"Address the 20%, don't trash the whole program"
Brilliant! I feel the same way. 15% of the US did not have insurance. Why didn't we address that 15% instead of trashing the whole program???
Ah, Right-Wing World - The Land Of False Equivalency.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 7 min seriously the ori... 539,239
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 13 min Tide with Beach 733,271
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 15 min dirty white boy- 600,021
Straight guys: Would you ever have intercourse ... (Jul '12) 52 min Don 91
Alicia Yarbrough Bippus! (Apr '12) 1 hr Suzie-C 4
Hot gays in Abu Dhabi (Nov '13) 1 hr playful 756
Why do Turkish men cheat (Aug '10) 2 hr meme 477
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 2 hr religionislies 226,397
Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 3 hr MUQ1 258,090
•••
Enter and win $5000

Top Stories People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••