Insanity Test

or Register to post new content in the forum

341 RepliesJump to last post

 

Comments

  • Allowed HTML tags: <em> <strong> <blockquote> <br> <p>

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Jul 21, 2007 4:21 pm

Knowing what you know now, would you still have voted for GW Bush in 2000 & 2004?

Jul 21, 2007 6:01 pm

Yes.

Jul 21, 2007 6:25 pm

Yes, especially knowing what I know now about Gore and Kerry.

Jul 21, 2007 7:01 pm
Dust Bunny:

Yes, especially knowing what I know now about Gore and Kerry.





Bingo!

Jul 22, 2007 6:07 pm

I wrote in Bobby Hull.  Unfortunately I don't know his real name, so I guess I ended up voting for a hockey player...oh well.

Jul 23, 2007 12:06 am

http://money.cnn.com/2004/01/21/markets/electiondemsvreps/



Why are we so worried about democrats winning elections?

------------



DB - you wrote that knowing what you now know about Gore & Kerry you would have voted the same way.



The current cost of the Iraq war is $10 Billion PER MONTH!



The cost to date of the war to date has been something like $380 Billion.



If Gore had not had the election stolen from him in 2000 we likely 1 - Would not have attacked Iraq(which had NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11.) 2 - Would not have been the central front in the war on terror had it not been for our intervention. 3 - By our own estimates Al Qaeda is now as capable as they were when they killed almost 4000 people in 2001. 4 - Not stretched our armed forces to its breaking point. ARE WE REALLY MORE SAFE TODAY!!!???



If you had $380 Billion to spend - let's call it half than that - $190 Billion. Let's assume that we spent the other $190 Billion obliterating Al Qaeda. Would you have put the money towards



- Alternatives to oil dependency

- Finding cures to cancer

- Fund the social security fund.

- Push problems with Medicare off.

- Provide universal pre-school for each child(which economists say has a positive economic result & payoff period of less than 20 yrs.)

- What else?



Why do you think if Bush hadn't won & hadn't gone out of his way to make a case for war in Iraq that we'd be in a worse place than we are now?

Jul 23, 2007 7:34 am

Ashland,


You're just another idiot who believes that the Republicans stole the election.  Poor Al Gore couldn't carry his home state so we have to blame the loss on the Republicans.  The same whining continues today, the democratic controlled congress has lower approval ratings than George Bush so it's his fault.  Just check out the various liberal whine, I mean news sites. 


If you had a clue about how to win a war, you'd see that pulling out is not the way to do it.  I served for 25 years and never once did I consider leaving because Ididn't agree with all of the decisions being made. 


Do you really think that the Democrat and Republican congressmen would have spent the money on anything really constructive? I don't.  Have all the decisions which have been made been correct?  NO! Do we pull out like whimpering liberal pansies? NO!


Yes, we are safer, and if Clinton would have taken care of this problem while he had the chance, we could be even safer. You liberals tend to forget that 9/11 happened on your watch under your Boy, Baby Face Bill. 


Bush inherited the problems and is trying to fix them.  Thanks for all the help.

Jul 23, 2007 8:02 am
Ashland:

If Gore had not had the election stolen from him in 2000



Whenever you read something like that you know, instantly, that the speaker is an idiot.


The reason we are in Iraq is because we are fighting terrorism--and Iraq was a terror state.


Iraq occupies a land area that is key to controlling the threat of terror.  A basic military technique is "Divide and Conquor" and a pro-West Iraq would separate Syria from Iran--stopping the free flow of weapons.


The despicable set in this country--the whiners--are fond of saying that the markets perform better under Democrats, "on average."


As they say, figures never lie but liars always figure.


What the liars do is a simple averaging exercise.  They take the return during each administration since--conveniently--1927 and average them.


In doing this the 1,000 days of the Kennedy administration count as one and so does the more than twelve years of the Roosevelt administration.


The reason that they start with 1927 is because that was the beginning of the Hoover administration which was in power when the market crashed in 1929--that way the GOP averages include an administration when the averages damn near zeroed out.


There are only thirteen administrations in this averaging deal--averaging small groups of numbers is notoriously misleading.


If you start in 1933--leaving Hoover off--the numbers are not 11% and 2% they're more like 11% and 10%.


If you start in 1944--leaving out the thirteen years of the Roosevelt administration that count just as much as the less than three years of the Ford administration--the numbers flip and favor the GOP.


The number used for the Roosevelt years is just as spectacular on the upside as the number used for Hoover is spectacular on the downside.  Roosevelt comes to office with the Dow at something like 50--yep 50, and it's now just shy of 14,000.  On his watch it went up hundreds of percentage points--hundreds of them.


But numbers are misleading.  Going from 50 to 500 is a 1000% gain but dropping from 500 to 50 is not a 1000 percent loss.  In other words the first two numbers used in this nonsense comparison set it up.


Hoover's number is minus about 90% while Roosevelt's number is a huge positive number, yet much of what happened was little more than recovering.  I'm not bothering to look up the actual numbers, simply demonstrating the techniques used by the despicable people to support their lying.


The reality is that there have been two "golden ages" in the US economy since the Great Depression.  The first was the post war period of the 1950s--while Eisenhower was in office.


The second was in the 1980s when Reagan was in office.


The Clinton years were good too--but that is because of the Gingrich revolution and the fact that the GOP controlled the House for the first time since 1933 and they kept President Clinton's natural instinct to tax and spend in check.


Don't even try to make a case for good times when the House, Senate and White House are all controlled by Democrats.  For that example take a look at the Carter years.


When you hear Whiners such as this Ashland child spout nonsense like he just did remember that they're using only 13 numbers--and two of them are -90% for Hoover and +2,500% for Roosevelt.


As I said, figures never lie but liars always figure.


Jul 23, 2007 9:17 am
FreeFromJones:

You liberals tend to forget that 9/11 happened on your watch under your Boy, Baby Face Bill. 


Bush inherited the problems and is trying to fix them.  Thanks for all the help.



Are you saying the 2000 election occurred after 9/11/2001???

Jul 23, 2007 9:30 am
Mandoman:

Are you saying the 2000 election occurred after 9/11/2001???



No, idiot.  What is being said is that it was the weak-sister response to the previous eight years of attacks that emboldened Al Quada to mount the successful attacks of 9-11-01.


It is also nonsensical to not agree that every moment of the planning occurred on the Clinton watch.


Now, tell us which attacks were planned and executed on the Bush administration's watch?

Jul 23, 2007 9:48 am
Ashland:


If Gore had not had the election stolen from him in 2000 ....



That line's one of those great shortcuts in life. When you read it, you know you're dealing with an irrational person, and needn't waste any more time talking to them.


It's sort of like when someone mentions the Illuminati or Chemtrails...


Jul 23, 2007 10:06 am
Devil'sAdvocate:
Mandoman:

Are you saying the 2000 election occurred after 9/11/2001???



No, idiot.  What is being said is that it was the weak-sister response to the previous eight years of attacks that emboldened Al Quada to mount the successful attacks of 9-11-01.


It is also nonsensical to not agree that every moment of the planning occurred on the Clinton watch.


Now, tell us which attacks were planned and executed on the Bush administration's watch?



Easy there, Sizzle Chest.  I was trying to get a clarification of when W was elected, since you noted that it wasn't his watch during 2001.


I believe there have been at least 3631 successful attacks carried out so far under the current "watch," but I haven't read the paper the last couple of days, so maybe that number is a little higher at this time.


I'm not disagreeing with you, just making it obvious who the real "idiot" is.

Jul 23, 2007 10:13 am

Mandoman, Do you believe that our country would be safer if Gore or Kerry was in the White House?

Jul 23, 2007 10:49 am
Jul 23, 2007 11:06 am
Devil'sAdvocate:
Ashland:

If Gore had not had the election stolen from him in 2000



Whenever you read something like that you know, instantly, that the speaker is an idiot.


True that, because Gore didn't have the election stolen from him, the American People had it stolen from US. No matter how many times you ditto heads echo the talking points, the fact remains that the Florida "election" was rigored, jiggered, disfigured and configured to be deniggered. The number of legal, law abiding black americans that showed up at the polls, only to be told that LeRoy Johnson's name had been taken off the voting rolls due to a felony conviction ("But I'm not that LeRoy Johnson", "Take it up with the election board, tomorrow, but you are not voting today!") was far above the additional number needed to have carried the state for Gore


True Gore did not carry Tennessee, but since when did that backwater determine who gets to be president?   


The reason we are in Iraq is because we are fighting terrorism--and Iraq was a terror state.


WRONG! Iraq IS a terror state, Iraq "was" not a terror state. Aggressive? Yes. Warlike? An adversary to its neighbors? Yes. A state run by a terrible person? Yes. A state that terrorized its own population? Yes. A terrorist state? No.


It's funny that the only people who still hold this view are the people whoes main news source is Fox News.


Iraq is now a terrorist state.


Iraq occupies a land area that is key to controlling the threat of terror.  A basic military technique is "Divide and Conquor" and a pro-West Iraq would separate Syria from Iran--stopping the free flow of weapons.


And so the best way to make people "pro west" is to bomb the living sh*t out of them! RIGHT! There is no logic to this, it's like the old saying "Fighting for peace is like f**king for chastity!"


The despicable set in this country--the whiners--are fond of saying that the markets perform better under Democrats, "on average."


Read a book wouldja please! Here's one you might be interested in http://www.amazon.com/Wealth-Democracy-Political-History-Ame rican/dp/0767905342/ref=pdbbs_sr_1/103-5750818-5432622?ie=U TF8&s=books&qid=1185200573&sr=1-1  You'll find out that Republicans weren't always the "Party of the rich" and that,historically it is quite the contrary.


As they say, figures never lie but liars always figure.


Blah Blah Blah On his [FDR's] watch it went up hundreds of percentage points--hundreds of them.


Why was that? Because he managed to keep the country, which was past the brink of falling apart, together. Why do you think the McCarthy hearings were so busy? Because there were plenty of people who had joined the comunist party. Why? Because this capitalist system favored by the growing American Aristocracy had utterly and completely failed. Please, if you're going to be in this business, understand its history.


But numbers are misleading.  Going from 50 to 500 is a 1000% gain but dropping from 500 to 50 is not a 1000 percent loss.  In other words the first two numbers used in this nonsense comparison set it up.


Hoover's number is minus about 90% while Roosevelt's number is a huge positive number, yet much of what happened was little more than recovering.  I'm not bothering to look up the actual numbers, simply demonstrating the techniques used by the despicable people to support their lying.


The reality is that there have been two "golden ages" in the US economy since the Great Depression.  The first was the post war period of the 1950s--while Eisenhower was in office.


The second was in the 1980s when Reagan was in office.


The Clinton years were good too--but that is because of the Gingrich revolution and the fact that the GOP controlled the House for the first time since 1933 and they kept President Clinton's natural instinct to tax and spend in check.


HOLY CHRIST! Phillips himself (the guy after whom the screwdriver design is named, not the author) didn't spin as much as you do!


Don't even try to make a case for good times when the House, Senate and White House are all controlled by Democrats.  For that example take a look at the Carter years.


A sample of 13 is too small but a sample of one is just ipsy pipsy!


Carter, who inherited a huge deficit from Nixon/Ford and the VietNam war. Who had to contend with the Kissingerization of the Middle east as he (Kissinger) encouraged the Middle Eastern nations to buy US warplanes (which we weren't buying in such numbers anymore because of the end of the war) using money they made by nationalizing the oil fields and forming a strong oil cartel.


Carter, the President who worked against his own political interest when he appointed Paul Volker as head of the fed. Paul Volker, whom the economic world sees as the man who broke the back of inflation. He cost Carter his presidency, but for their pains, they (again) saved the nation. "And all the thanks he gets from you is 'look at all that poo poo in the yard!'"


When you hear Whiners such as this Ashland child spout nonsense like he just did remember that they're using only 13 numbers--and two of them are -90% for Hoover and +2,500% for Roosevelt.


And the 90% downdraft had nothing to do with Hoover, and the + 2500 had nothing to do with FDR's policies and the cleaning up of the banking and investment industries. It would have happened anyway according to you!


As I said, figures never lie but liars always figure.


So am I to understand that all figurers are liars? Go Figure!

Jul 23, 2007 11:09 am

Anybody who classifies all people with a contrary opinion to their own as "Obvious Idiots" is ... well, you know.

Jul 23, 2007 11:16 am
Whomitmayconcer:

Blah Blah Blah On his [FDR's] watch it went up hundreds of percentage points--hundreds of them.


Why was that? Because he managed to keep the country, which was past the brink of falling apart, together. Why do you think the McCarthy hearings were so busy? Because there were plenty of people who had joined the comunist party. Why? Because this capitalist system favored by the growing American Aristocracy had utterly and completely failed. Please, if you're going to be in this business, understand its history.



The reason the economy did well during the thirteen years of the Roosevelt administration was because the nation geared up to fight a war and every man in the country had a job in the military.


I'm not sure what the McCarthy hearings have to do with anything--including the Roosevelt years since they occurred during the Eisenhower years.


If you're a fan of Communism you're going to become very frustrated by working on Wall Street.  Perhaps you should resign now, before you make a fool of yourself and/or cost your client's their retirements.


Fools like you are dangerous.

Jul 23, 2007 11:36 am
anonymous:

Mandoman, Do you believe that our country would be safer if Gore or Kerry was in the White House?


No. 


I think we would be safer today if we put efforts into securing our borders and ports, as well as if we initiated some of the other suggestions of the 9/11 Report.


I'm not sure that we are safer by being in Iraq with our troops.  I think we would be safer had we put our efforts into getting Bin Laden rather than Sadaam.  Perhaps Iraq wouldn't even had become an issue had the first Gulf War been carried out with a more specific mission.


I think we would be safer today by use of better diplomacy throughout the world.  The most recent example that comes to mind is back in the Nixon era with China.  (Some will argue Reagan with Russia, but that was happening with or without US involvement.  Some will say Carter is the man when it comes to diplomacy.)


Unfortunately, the current candidacy on both sides of the isle is somewhat limited, IMO.  I don't believe anyone would want that job "for the people," but only for their own ego/empire building.


Unlike some here, I don't have all of the answers, but I don't believe that asking questions or even having a differing opinion makes someone an idiot.

Jul 23, 2007 11:47 am

Nobody said otherwise in re the reason the economy surged during Roosevelt's administration. Please try to stick to what is presented and not your flights of remembered rhetoric.


The FACT is that when Roosevelt took office this nation was starting to revolt. The class warfare had reached a boiling point that most assuredly would have resulted in armed anarchy (which the masses would not necessesarilly have won. Have you ever read The Grapes of Wrath do you know why the Fair Labor Standards act was singned into law (in both cases the issue was reverse auctioning of labor in that the employers were using child labor to force adult labor to accept lower and lower wages. In TGOW, it (the reverse auction) was achieved by the farmers of California advertising high wage jobs so as to flood their market with labor that would then have to compete with a rigged supply and demand equation).


Futher, when FDR started implimenting his reforms, the industrialists tried to buy the army to effect a coup d e'tat (Roosevelt was informed of this by one of the generals who saw his duty clear).


The country was shattered and it was Roosevelt's first hundred days that saved the union (albeit in a different form than what it was before).


Of course you're not sure what McCarthy has to do with it, because nobody has prepared you for questions about him before.


The fact is that while the US economy was going down the tubes, the Russian economy, under the newly created "Communism" was growning at 9% per year. To Americas huddled masses, that looked like a viable alternative to the failed system they were starving under. And so the communist party was strong in the USA (I use this as evidence for you that the country was in the begining stage of dissolution and revolution when Roosevelt came in.


Years later, after the threat had passed and the fear of Communism as a common foe (much like "terrorism" is now the common fear today and will one day be looked at as a popular hysteria) McCarthy had his hearings and ruined the lives of people who were only looking out for the common man.


"Fan of Communism" Again with the Pavlovian responses (whip your chin, you're drooling again!)  I understand lots of things that I'm not a fan of. You for example, I understand you, but I'm not at all fond of you.


Here's one thing about you that I understand, when someone calls themself the "Devil'sAdvocate" and then toe's the party line, they are a person who's brain processes aren't worth the toilet paper they're "written " on.

Jul 23, 2007 11:59 am
Mandoman:

Unfortunately, the current candidacy on both sides of the isle is somewhat limited, IMO.  I don't believe anyone would want that job "for the people," but only for their own ego/empire building.


Unlike some here, I don't have all of the answers, but I don't believe that asking questions or even having a differing opinion makes someone an idiot.



What isle is it, genius?