(January 3, 2018 at 1:52 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: Every time Drich calls someone 'sport', it's hard to not deduct points from his estimated IQ. I'm trying, though.

His estimated IQ has no points to deduct.

(December 27, 2017 at 2:53 am)AtlasS33 Wrote: [...] combined with the crossing of the line of WMD usage after WW2 (remember the dropping of MOB in Afghanistan)?

Conventional bombs are not WMDs.

The current bull market is a feeding frenzy of sharks. Trump merely established his intent to support business viewed by others as an effective strategy. However, when we see people/funds pulling money out of cash just to be a part of this ridiculously overvalued bull market, then they are just giddy and are doing so independent of value.

This happened in the late 90's when President Clinton eliminated the deficit by shrinking outdated and unnecessary military in view of then current available technology. (stated simply)Then President Bush gave us two extra tax refund checks because the government had too much money. Then 9/11 and those days were over. Now we gots us fucking TSA! Give me freedom and kill our enemies NOT fucking security!

But, we went to Iraq/Afghanistan and we stayed! Did America learn nothing from the Spanish American war in the Philippians? Didn't his own father go in and get the hell out? Now we gots us a huge deficit AGAIN!

The soon coming crash of the stock market is a reflection of greedy tulip stupidity. Yet, I don't see it as a crash of an economy but rather the bubble bursting. Then everyone will plow there money back into gold and then real estate. This will be unlike the crash of 9/29/2008 which was a near complete economic meltdown. Yet, that complete meltdown is going to come.

Why do you say a complete meltdown is coming? Because we are a nation of the people for the people, not a nation of corporate shareholder value owned by rapists , child molesters, anti-American extremists or, whomever else owns stock in that company. A corporation that raises shareholder value while the American that work for them must suffer diminishing pay and benefits for the sake of "shareholder value" is never going to work.

Since that business model is unrighteous, it cannot sustain itself indefinitely. Large matrix based corporations are ruled by Peters Law: everyone will eventually be promoted to there own level of complete incompetence. Which will pave the way for true entrepreneurship to kick their fucking ass! Fuck the stock market!

What's the moral? I've been alive since Eisenhower was president and it has never mattered shit whom the president is! I do not give a flying fuck who the president is. I do not put my trust in man and God bless America and God bless president Trump!

Blow your god and your president out your ass!

Quote:What's the moral? I've been alive since Eisenhower was president and it has never mattered shit whom the president is! I do not give a flying fuck who the president is. I do not put my trust in man and God bless America and God bless president Trump!

Then you have lived a long life blind .

(January 4, 2018 at 10:37 pm)Tizheruk Wrote:

Quote:What's the moral? I've been alive since Eisenhower was president and it has never mattered shit whom the president is! I do not give a flying fuck who the president is. I do not put my trust in man and God bless America and God bless president Trump!

Then you have lived a long life blind .

I was struck blind a 9yrs old and was blind for only a year. It truly sucks! Yet, I never lost site of my true friend Jesus and His promise of life more abundant even while I was blind! By the way, He kept his promise to me of a life beyond my wildest dreams! But, that's just anecdotal to you. "T'was blind but now I see".

Quote:I was struck blind a 9yrs old and was blind for only a year. It truly sucks! Yet, I never lost site of my true friend Jesus and His promise of life more abundant even while I was blind! By the way, He kept his promise to me of a life beyond my wildest dreams! But, that's just anecdotal to you. "T'was blind but now I see".

Your statement above and this one says otherwise .

(January 3, 2018 at 11:20 am)Rev. Rye Wrote:

(January 3, 2018 at 11:10 am)Drich Wrote: It's already started sport. when everyone has a new house and a new car in the drive and still has money left over for a boat or camper dem rep it does not matter we always vote to keep the prosperous president in office...

And then, when the economy bursts again, we look back at what what led us to it and we frequently find that the policies of the "prosperous president" was a crucial part in them, especially if he calls himself a "fiscal conservative," because regardless of what one promises on the campaign trail, when one's in the Oval Office, Nobody is a fiscal conservative. Just look at Reagan,

National debt skyrocketed during the Reagan years:


And it wasn't because of the Tax-and-Spend Democrats in Congress, because sometimes, Reagan wanted more than they got:


And here's how much the lower classes lost and upper classes gained because St. Ronnie wanted to undo the good that happened under Roosevelt and Eisenhower:

Where is the obama graph? you know the one that shows him literally doubling the debt of the nation . Meaning he took the national debt of every president before him and doubled it during his 8 years. graphs are great for your little narritive because it only tells 1/3 of the story and you get to make up the rest.

Trump's approach will be a little different in that he is looking to cut large portions of government spending. like for instance obama care.

(January 5, 2018 at 11:22 am)Drich Wrote: And it wasn't because of the Tax-and-Spend Democrats in Congress, because sometimes, Reagan wanted more than they got:


Where is the obama graph? you know the one that shows him literally doubling the debt of the nation . Meaning he took the national debt of every president before him and doubled it during his 8 years. graphs are great for your little narritive because it only tells 1/3 of the story and you get to make up the rest.

Trump's approach will be a little different in that he is looking to cut large portions of government spending. like for instance obama care.

And, of course, it quadrupled in the Reagan/Bush I years. By 1988, it was three times higher than it had been. And the last time I checked, tripling and quadrupling it is a bigger accomplishment than merely doubling it.

And, of course, Reagan talked a good game about cutting government spending, but he didn't change anything. The graph I retained in this quote shows it; a lot of the time, he wanted more money than Congress was wiling to allocate, and the times he didn't, the difference was negligible. In practice, regardless of someone's convictions on the campaign trail, when they're in a position of great power, it doesn't mean a damn thing. It never does. They may cut programs that actually help people, but they'll invariably find a way to allocate more money to fund their pet projects (whether it's bloating the military, creating programs that hinge on satellite technology being a lot more precise than it is even now, let alone the 1980s, or creating a massive wall that will cost more money than any other building project in American history and won't actually stem the tide of illegal immigration) and it won't actually mean a damn thing because that will more than make up the difference.