Quote from BSAM:
Brother Tao, you're the winner of the longest reply contest in the history of elitetrader.com.
Congratulations!
(see above)
You would be well advised to think for yourself, and not hand your buddy a cookie so quickly, when much of what he says is rhetoric.
Quote from Tsing Tao:
If you would like to debate the AK47 image stats, I will be happy to do so one at a time. Just say which one you think is correct first, and then we can begin with me showing you why it is wrong, and you showing me why it is right.
Again I won't defend AK's numbers. I don't doubt their validity, but I won't waste my time on them either.
All I said was AK realized he has an intelligent audience, and works to provide proof to support his comments.
You are the one who said his numbers were bullshit, yet you have given still, not one piece of evidence that says otherwise. ???
Yes, but any President would have made it (except Clinton, who held back).[/QUOTE]
So you say, but only one president made the call. Our president.
Bush could've but didn't make the call. The call he made was to take out his daddy's nemesis, Sadam Hussien. I'm not saying the guy didn't deserve to have his ass kicked, but there are plenty who were in line before him, like OSAMA, who Obama took out.
I think you get my point that no real effort was made to get Bin Laden. There's probably one guy in here, who may even read this post, that can match that 25 million dollar bounty in his sleep. [/QUOTE]
What does this even mean? [/QUOTE]
What I mean is, 25 million dollars could likely easily be afforded by someone on this website alone.
It's peanuts compared to the money and lives spent fighting in the desert on the other side of the ocean. A 1 or 2 billion bounty would have brought Bin Laden's head on a platter.
If I missed something in your thesis, then I apologize. Spending "kazillions" on the war absolutely made no sense to me, but as I said previously (and did not miss this point, actually) you are making the assumption that a higher bounty would have worked. Do you have any solid intel you can share that would substantiate such a claim? [/QUOTE]
No, just common sense which you seem to be lacking in certain areas if you can't agree that a billion or two would have WAY upped the odds of bringing in Bin Laden.
I challenge you to tell me how many "kazillions" we spent on that war. I then challenge you to defend those dollars spent, because your boy Mitt certainly did.
Again the numbers are liquid from different sources, but I remember learning that we were at 600 billion in the first few months of the invasion, and the weekly bill was in the billions. You claim to have access to all the right numbers, while I do not, so here's your chance to prove it.
But I do find it wearing on my patience that you are able to keep side stepping the real issue here, that Obama was the president to put focus on what it would take to kill Bin Laden.
You keep saying anyone would have(except Clinton), but Bin Laden hadn't yet even committed the level of atrocity that he did on 9/11, when Clinton had the chance to kill him.
If the free market lets them die, why does the government spend money on them? Why does the government have any right to determine which companies go under, and which ones are saved? [/QUOTE]
For the same reasons I gave you that you already ignored. Because we can't depend on individuals owning individual companies to look past the bottom line and do what's right for the county, the work force, and the planet.
I think you are smart enough to agree, but you are obviously either too stubborn, or worried what your peers will think of you for having anything good to say about Obama.
What are you talking about? If there is a need, someone makes something in the private sector to satisfy the need.[/QUOTE]
And you likely think that some company would have "eventually" came along to build the Hoover Dam, without government assistance, correct?
The model being "young" has nothing to do with it.[/QUOTE]
The model being young has almost everything do with it, if you would just open you mind and ears a little more, as I explain further.
Hell, pick any number of companies out there that got started through innovation and hard work, not through the government. [/QUOTE]
Perhaps you should do a bit of research on the Hoover Dam. Any thoughts on why it has that name? You guessed it, because President Hoover was the one who pushed for its development, and congress authorized it's construction so that thousands of families, companies and industry could prosper from it. It was a mass effort brought on by the President, congress, senators, representatives, private companies, and citizens alike. All funded by tax paying citizens.
Have you ever thought their may be a day that a wind or solar plant, or some other new and fantastic technological energy plant may be named after President Obama? Or, Is it impossible for you to think it is possible?
Apple? Google? Microsoft? Some of those companies got started when the "computer" model was still young and didn't have the chance to be "molded". That's how capitalism works.[/QUOTE]
In case you don't fully understand what secular growth is, you just described above, the companies who are at the heart of it in the computer tech industry. What you are failing to comprehend is Energy has been around for centuries and is not secular growth, so comparing the two doesn't work. The business model for one doesn't contribute to the other. That's a problem because you like others, are hell bent in thinking they should both be issues for the free market to solve.
There are many different means in which we can produce that energy, but it just happens to be, at the moment, more profitable to do it in a way that compromises the health of workers and the planet.
Solar and wind can't compete with the covenience of pumping oil out of the ground, or digging up coal which readily burns to produce Energy. And no business man in his right mind is going to take on the task of making "green energy" compete when the profits don't compete. Thus, green energy technology will continue to be left behind while we continue to destroy our environment, with the easy money way of doing things.
A need will develop when the price of the alternative is worth while in producing. For example, when oil gets too high, solar, wind, etc., will become more worthwhile to use. If it costs too much to dispose of batteries and plastic bottles, waste companies will have no choice but to examine ways to deal with that - or charge people disposing of those items more. Eventually, the cost outweighs the benefits and people change - without the government. The government has a disastrous track record of trying to pick winners or manage agencies designed to offer a service or product.[/QUOTE]
I want you and your buddies to listen and listen good, then think about it because you may actually get it, one of these days, if you try. The statements you just made represents perhaps the biggest issues we face as a species, and is the most dangerous way of thinking.
You, and others, say we'll get to it later when there is a need. You might as well say we'll cut the arm off later, when we need to, after the snake has bitten us.
The time and the need are long past. You just keep saying eventually, and you, me and our grandchildren will eventually get what is coming. Eventually we will run out of oil and coal, but by then we may never see the sun again, or if we do it may be deadly.
AIG has paid back $45B of the $67B it owed. Most of the big banks have paid back their initial bailouts, yes. How did they do that? Through a back door bank bailout where the Fed allows them to borrow almost limitless 0%~ money, and earn interest on it - risk free. They used that interest to repay loans. The legislation designed to prevent them from being too big to fail only ensured that they are much bigger now than before, and that the next collapse will be unthinkable. [/QUOTE]
I'll let Tim Massad explain it better than I can. I'm choosing to favor his opinion on the matter over yours.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/41408120/Treasury_s_Massad_Talks_TARP
Dude, if you're going to attempt humor at my expense, at least make it above the 3rd grade level, ok? Otherwise I just tune out to the hummm of "Boring".[/QUOTE]
I admit I was making an attempt at dry humor here. But you did say you used another moniker, so I'm just trying to figure out who is who, as well.
