OT another" low reaching handshake"
bub
just like for the saudis
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2009/11/obama-emperor-akihito-japan.html
mccard
news:dhhuf5dfj34k218ou...@4ax.com...
>
>
> just like for the saudis
>
> http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2009/11/obama-emperor-akihito-japan.html
>
>
examine his bowel movements as well.
bub
wrote:
you see the president bent over and you think bowel movements...very
telling indeed
mccard
No, I see reptiles trying to destroy the President and by extension
the presidency and the country and it makes me think they are fecal
matter.
Paul Popinjay
news:8tKLm.33045$W77....@newsfe11.iad...
>
> No, I see reptiles trying to destroy the President and by extension the
> presidency and the country and it makes me think they are fecal matter.
McTard, get the fuck oudda here. It's not Bub that is running up this
staggering debt, it's your "president". Obama should be in jail. His
policies are nothing less than treasonous. And you should be in jail too,
in the cell next to him, for driving under the influence of stupidity.
Jerry Sturdivant
"Paul Popinjay"
With the economy on the rebound; home sales up and the stock market
following, it�s a hoot, watching the neocons scramble around looking for
something to bitch about.
�Oh! Oh! The president showed respect and returned a bow! Why is he talking
with potential enemies! Oh! Oh!�
> His policies are nothing less than treasonous.
�Policies?� How about actual practice? Like the White House outing a CIA
Agent? Didn�t think of that, did you? Huh? Huh?
Jerry (bent but not broken) �n Vegas
- Nothing sucks more than that moment during an
argument when you realize you're wrong.
da pickle
> The president showed respect and returned a bow!
Are you sure? I would like to know more.
It was my understanding that the Emperor bowed to no one. It would be
interesting to find out that the Emperor bowed to the President of the USA.
susan
"da pickle" <jcpickels@(nospam)hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:KYudnXW3xdq...@giganews.com...
It was totally out of line - and even caught the Emperor by surprise.
I just can't understand why he isn't told before meeting people what the
proper protocol is.
It's hard to blame this on O - Doesn't he have a Goldie Hawn teaching him
protocol?
mccard
news:S%ULm.4322$JC2....@newsfe06.iad...
susan
"mccard"
> Protocol, another word for being a shithead.
huh?
Wait, I get it. Manners, another word for being a Republican.
da pickle
>>> The president showed respect and returned a bow!
>>
>> Are you sure? I would like to know more.
>>
>> It was my understanding that the Emperor bowed to no one. It would be
>> interesting to find out that the Emperor bowed to the President of the
>> USA.
>>
>
> It was totally out of line - and even caught the Emperor by surprise.
>
> I just can't understand why he isn't told before meeting people what the
> proper protocol is.
>
> It's hard to blame this on O - Doesn't he have a Goldie Hawn teaching him
> protocol?
I know that our president bowed ... what surprises me is that Jerry
apparently has information that the president "returned" a bow.
I was under the impression that the Emperor bows to no one. Our president
might be somewhat forgiven if the Emperor broke tradition and bowed to the
president ... the president might have felt obliged to reciprocate. I will
await the new information.
mccard
Irish Mike
> just like for the saudis
>
>
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2009/11/obama-emperor-akihito-japan.html
Yet another picture of the Obama bowing down to a foreign leader. Let's
just be proud of the fact that Obama has not actually kissed a foreign
leader's ass - yet.
Irish Mike
President Obama has decided to send 40,000 additional troops to fight in
the war against Fox News.
Recession: When your neighbor loses his job.
Depression: When you lose your job.
Recovery: When Obama loses his job.
--------�
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
Irish Mike
> "bub" <b...@plottus.com> wrote in message
> news:tqmuf5pnd8j5j6scq...@4ax.com...
> > On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 19:03:47 -0600, "mccard"
> > <mick....@nothere.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >>"bub" <b...@plottus.com> wrote in message
> >>news:dhhuf5dfj34k218ou...@4ax.com...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> just like for the saudis
> >>>
> >>>
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2009/11/obama-emperor-akihito-japan.html
> >>>
> >>>
> >>I'm sure if the Secret Service would allow it you wingnuts would
> >>examine his bowel movements as well.
> >
> >
> > you see the president bent over and you think bowel movements...very
> > telling indeed
>
> No, I see reptiles trying to destroy the President and by extension
> the presidency and the country and it makes me think they are fecal
> matter.
You left out the part about us all being racists.
Irish Mike
OK folks, our phone lines are open and the tenth caller will win... The
Nobel Peace Prize!
--------�
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com
FL Turbo
wrote:
This is probably a good litmus test to identify the hard core Obama
KoolAid drinkers in the crowd.
They will continue to defend this latest example of Obama bumbling,
fumbling and stumbling his way along, as a Good Thing.
Jerry Sturdivant
"da pickle"
>>> With the economy on the rebound; home sales up and the
>>> stock market following, it�s a hoot, watching the neocons
>>> scramble around looking for something to bitch about.
>> The president showed respect and returned a bow!
Excuse me; collective bow from the people of Japan. It�s an insult NOT to
bow. And again, is this really the only thing you have to cry about? See my
top paragraph. Then see if you can find out if he wore white socks or not.
It might be important to your bitching about a failed presidency. It could
even be treasonous.
Jerry (lol) �n Vegas
- Obituaries would be a lot more interesting
if they told you how the person died.
Irish Mike
Obama takes a big foreign tour, trashes America in front of any country
that will give him a microphone and then sees how low he can bow down when
he meets their leaders. As Americans, we can be proud of the fact that
Obama has not actually kissed a foreign leader's ass - yet.
Irish Mike
OK folks, our phone lines are open and the tenth caller will win... The
Nobel Peace Prize!
____________________________________________________________________�
Jerry Sturdivant
"Irish Mike"
> Yet another picture of the Obama bowing down to a foreign
> leader. Let's just be proud of the fact that Obama has
> not actually kissed a foreign leader's ass - yet.
Actually he is. Because of the Bush administration putting us in greater
debt, we've had to borrow from the Japanese.
Jerry 'n Vegas
- When cryptography is outlawed, bayl bfynjf wirhm tolaq.
Jerry Sturdivant
"Irish Mike"
> Obama takes a big foreign tour, trashes America
> in front of any country ..
This is the fifth time I've asked Cut & Paste & Run Mike to tell us how
Obama has trashed our country.
Jerry (lol @ I'm) 'n Vegas
- When I was your age cats were wild, and kids were tame!
garycarson
> just like for the saudis
>
>
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2009/11/obama-emperor-akihito-japan.html
It's just an old habit from his muslim upbringing -- it doesn't really
mean anything.
______________________________________________________________________�
mccard
news:fpl5t6x...@recgroups.com...
> On Nov 14 2009 11:22 PM, mccard wrote:
>
>> "bub" <b...@plottus.com> wrote in message
>> news:tqmuf5pnd8j5j6scq...@4ax.com...
>> > On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 19:03:47 -0600, "mccard"
>> > <mick....@nothere.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >>"bub" <b...@plottus.com> wrote in message
>> >>news:dhhuf5dfj34k218ou...@4ax.com...
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> just like for the saudis
>> >>>
>> >>>
> http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2009/11/obama-emperor-akihito-japan.html
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>I'm sure if the Secret Service would allow it you wingnuts would
>> >>examine his bowel movements as well.
>> >
>> >
>> > you see the president bent over and you think bowel
>> > movements...very
>> > telling indeed
>>
>> No, I see reptiles trying to destroy the President and by extension
>> the presidency and the country and it makes me think they are fecal
>> matter.
>
> You left out the part about us all being racists.
>
FL Turbo
<garyc...@alumni.northwestern.edu> wrote:
>On Nov 14 2009 7:08 PM, bub wrote:
>
>> just like for the saudis
>>
>>
>http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2009/11/obama-emperor-akihito-japan.html
>
>It's just an old habit from his muslim upbringing -- it doesn't really
>mean anything.
>
Well, even though you scoff, I think that this one was much different
than the Saudi thing.
This one was a true bow.
I have maintained that it was a curtsy, and not a real bow to the
Saudi guy.
I keep wondering if he goes to England again, will he try to tug on
his forelock?
As soon as I can figger out what it all means, I'll let everybody
know.
~M~
news:YOVLm.31473$Xf2....@newsfe12.iad...
> Excuse me; collective bow from the people of Japan.
I do not see the people of Japan in the video. Just the emporer, and a
woman, perhaps his wife.
Our Apologist in Chief bowed to them repeatedly, like the little bitch he
is.
> It�s an insult NOT to bow.
No, it's not, you ClaveRobin.
--
"Socialism is the ultimate destiny of the species, if we don't kill
ourselves first"
- Beldin the Sorcerer, 3/18/2008
susan
"Obama's breach of protocol is of a piece with the substance of his foreign
policy. He means to teach Americans to bow before monarchs and tyrants. He
embodies the ideological multiculturalism that sets the United States on the
same plane as other regimes based on tribal privilege and royal bloodlines.
He gives expressive form to the idea that the United States now willingly
prostrates itself before the rest of the world. He declares that the United
States is a country like any other, only worse, because we have so much for
which to apologize."
FL Turbo
wrote:
Whew
For his sake, I hope that Douglas is close to retirement.
He's gonna catch a load of crap from academic PoliSci types for that
statement.
Um, er, are you sure that didn't come from the Onion or Iowahawk?
(It always pays to check, ya know)
Sadly, it comes about as close to explaining Obama's behavior as I've
seen so far.
I'd much rather think of it only as another instance of Obama's
bumbling, fumbling and stumbling his way along.
bub
<jer...@cox.net> wrote:
>With the economy on the rebound; home sales up and the stock market
>following, it�s a hoot, watching the neocons scramble around looking for
>something to bitch about.
please see deficit spending under obama, all of which has to be paid
back with interest and yet he wants to borrow and spend more.
>�Oh! Oh! The president showed respect and returned a bow!
� 2009 � Report
TOKYO, Japan � Upon arriving at the Imperial Palace yesterday for a
private lunch, President Obama shook the hand of Emperor Akihito and
gave a bow. The emperor did not return a bow.
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-3108-Baltimore-Republican-Examiner~y2009m11d14-President-Obama-bows-to-emperor-of-Japan
>
>�Policies?� How about actual practice? Like the White House outing a CIA
>Agent? Didn�t think of that, did you? Huh? Huh?
this one?
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/10/28/blogs/coopscorner/entry5438197.shtml
October 28, 2009 4:26 PM
Who Outed Our Afghan CIA Agent And Why?
"Just two weeks before the Afghan presidential runoff, unnamed sources
reveal to the New York Times that the brother of Afghan president
Hamid Karzai has been on the CIA payroll for years. "
>Jerry (with a mouthful of deep-fried twinkies) �n Vegas
da pickle
>
> "da pickle"
>
>>> The president showed respect and returned a bow!
>
>> Are you sure? I would like to know more.
>>
>> It was my understanding that the Emperor bowed to no one.
>> It would be interesting to find out that the Emperor bowed to
>> the President of the USA.
>
> Excuse me; collective bow from the people of Japan.
So, somehow Obama received a bow from the people of Japan and that is the
reason he felt the need to bow to the Emperor?
> It�s an insult NOT to bow.
So, you are saying that the Emperor bowed to the president so as not to
insult him. That was what I was asking you about. I did not think the
Emperor bowed to anyone. Where is your evidence?
> And again, is this really the only thing you have to cry about? See my
> top paragraph. Then see if you can find out if he wore white socks or not.
> It might be important to your bitching about a failed presidency. It could
> even be treasonous.
I am not crying, I am interested in this bow. Why are attempting to change
the subject? Look up the word "kowtow" and see if you can find some history
in this insult stuff. You have shifted your level of posting of late ...
starting to sound way too much like mccard.
Jerry Sturdivant
"susan"
> Donald Douglas an asst. professor of political science blogs
>
> "Obama's breach of protocol is of a piece with the substance
> of his foreign policy. He means to teach Americans to bow
> before monarchs and tyrants.
How desperate a reach is that? You folks really are hard up.
Jerry (lol @ u) �n Vegas
- When subtlety fails us we must resort to cream pies.
Jerry Sturdivant
"~M~"
>> It�s an insult NOT to bow.
> No, it's not, you ClaveRobin.
Whatever that means. Try being wrong in English; perhaps you�ll be
understood.
Jerry �n Vegas
- God loves you, and he is going to send you to hell!
Jerry Sturdivant
"bub"
>> With the economy on the rebound; home sales up and
>> the stock market following, it's a hoot, watching the
>> neocons scramble around looking for something to bitch
>> about.
> please see deficit spending under Obama
Please see the reason why. The economists have repeatedly explained it. It
has to do with what happened during the Bush administration.
Jerry 'n Vegas
- Just My Opinion (But I'm Right!)
Jerry Sturdivant
"da pickle"
>> Excuse me; collective bow from the people of Japan.
> So, somehow Obama received a bow from the people
> of Japan and that is the reason he felt the need to bow
> to the Emperor?
Yes. It was explained in the next line:
>> It�s an insult NOT to bow.
> So, you are saying that the Emperor bowed to the
> president so as not to insult him.
No; that�s not what I said. You keep asking questions when all you have to
do is reread what I wrote. Or you�re still looking for things to cry about.
>> And again, is this really the only thing you have to cry about? See my
>> top paragraph. Then see if you can find out if he wore white socks or
>> not.
>> It might be important to your bitching about a failed presidency. It
>> could
>> even be treasonous.
> I am not crying, I am interested in this bow.
Why?
Jerry �n Vegas
- Jurassic Park II: Barney Goes off His Medication.
Jason Pawloski
STOP YOUR RACISM, NEO-CONS!
--
Voted RGP's Stupidest Poster on 3/22/09
"ONLY ONE PROBLEM .. The Constitution doesnt have a preamble , but the
declaration of Independence does !! YOU JUST CANT MAKE THIS SHIT UP !!
:fuck facts ..i have some hate to spread!!" - Constitution scholar K9Way
giving RGP the business
"BART [Bay Area Rapid Transit] is rather new." - Jerry Sturdivant chiming
in on how little he knows about a train system that's been operational
since 1972
--------�
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com
Alim Nassor
> Please see the reason why. The economists have repeatedly explained it. It
> has to do with what happened during the Bush administration.
>
> Jerry 'n Vegas
>
All economists? Or just the ones that agree with you?
johnny_t
> "Jerry Sturdivant" <jer...@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:YOVLm.31473$Xf2....@newsfe12.iad...
>
>> Excuse me; collective bow from the people of Japan.
>
> I do not see the people of Japan in the video. Just the emporer, and a
> woman, perhaps his wife.
> Our Apologist in Chief bowed to them repeatedly, like the little bitch
> he is.
Really? Wow, who taught you how to talk, bitch.
da pickle
> Really? Wow, who taught you how to talk, bitch.
Such language ... is this "asshole" language?
K9way
> It's hard to blame this on O - Doesn't he have a Goldie Hawn teaching him
> protocol?
NO .. she is on a speaking tour after quitting her job as Alaska's
governor
Just when you think that youve been gypped ..the bearded lady comes and
does a double back flip!!! John Hiatt in "Buffalo River Home"
____________________________________________________________________�
K9way
as opposed to shitting on the whole world , making uniformed decisions,
based on manipulated lies , and then refusing to examine the results of
your own actions
Hundreds of thousands of dead people is something that doesnt need any
correction ? .. But if they accomplished their goals , or got UBL .. that
makes it OK ...oh wait
NOPE ..FAILED AT THAT ALSO
Just when you think that youve been gypped ..the bearded lady comes and
does a double back flip!!! John Hiatt in "Buffalo River Home"
_______________________________________________________________________�
Jerry Sturdivant
"Alim Nassor"
>> Please see the reason why. The economists have repeatedly
>> explained it. It has to do with what happened during the Bush
>> administration.
> All economists? Or just the ones that agree with you?
The ones that were correct: That being Obama's. Note the banks paying back
loans. Note General Motors paying back loans. Note the stock market going
up. Note home sales going up. Note job loss slowing.
Jerry 'n Vegas
- As easy as 3.14159265389793238462643383279502884197169399
da pickle
>> So, you are saying that the Emperor bowed to the
>> president so as not to insult him.
>
> No; that's not what I said.
So, you are saying the Emperor did NOT bow and insulted the president.
ChrisRobin
> just like for the saudis
>
>
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2009/11/obama-emperor-akihito-japan.html
Seriously? This is the latest Obama "scandal?" LMAO!
I'm in full support of legitimate Obama criticism, but you guys have
raised the art of political criticism to a shocking level of stupidity.
Imagine my surprise.
Jerry Sturdivant
"da pickle"
No. Try taking a class in reading comprehension. You won�t have to make up
stupid questions.
Jerry �n Vegas
- Conservative idea #1: Make it illegal and it will go away.
Jerry Sturdivant
"ChrisRobin"
>> just like for the saudis
>>
>>
>> http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2009/11/obama-emperor-akihito-japan.html
> Seriously? This is the latest Obama "scandal?" LMAO!
>
> I'm in full support of legitimate Obama criticism, but you
> guys have raised the art of political criticism to a shocking
> level of stupidity. Imagine my surprise.
Let's assign a number to these 'scandals." Put a number on Obama bowing to a
Japanese leader. Then put a number on starting a war with another country
and killing ten's of thousands of innocent men, women and children - all by
mistake. Then one on Clinton getting a blowjob.
Conservatives can be so stupid. Perhaps that's why there's fewer of them all
the time.
Jerry 'n Vegas
- Conservative idea #2: Lengthening jail times will solve crime.
da pickle
>>>> So, you are saying that the Emperor bowed to the
>>>> president so as not to insult him.
>
>>> No; that's not what I said.
>
>> So, you are saying the Emperor did NOT
>> bow and insulted the president.
>
> No. Try taking a class in reading comprehension. You won�t have to make up
> stupid questions.
No questions at all. YOU stated:
"It�s an insult NOT to bow."
Either the Emperor bowed or he did not. I do not know. I am surprised if
he did.
It seems to be your opinion that NOT to bow is an insult. If you are
correct and if the Emperor did not bow, he insulted the president ... at
least in your proclamation. I will admit that what you say does seem to
morph a lot. I suspect this one will glide away now.
Pepe Papon
<jer...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>"ChrisRobin"
>
>
>>> just like for the saudis
>>>
>>>
>>> http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2009/11/obama-emperor-akihito-japan.html
>
>> Seriously? This is the latest Obama "scandal?" LMAO!
>>
>> I'm in full support of legitimate Obama criticism, but you
>> guys have raised the art of political criticism to a shocking
>> level of stupidity. Imagine my surprise.
>
>Let's assign a number to these 'scandals." Put a number on Obama bowing to a
>Japanese leader. Then put a number on starting a war with another country
>and killing ten's of thousands of innocent men, women and children - all by
>mistake. Then one on Clinton getting a blowjob.
1) Bowing
2) Consensual sex
3) War. But this war was not by mistake. It was planned from Day 1.
--
~ Seth Jackson
MySpace URL - http://www.myspace.com/sethjacksonsong
Songwriting and Music Business Info: http://www.sethjackson.net
bub
<a9d...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
>Seriously? This is the latest Obama "scandal?" LMAO!
and who said it is a scandal?
Jerry Sturdivant
"da pickle"
>> No. Try taking a class in reading comprehension.
>> You won�t have to make up stupid questions.
> No questions at all. YOU stated:
>
> "It�s an insult NOT to bow."
Yea, and you couldn�t accept that concept so you made up a couple of
positions for me in the form of questions.
> Either the Emperor bowed or he did not. I do not know.
> I am surprised if he did.
And I really don�t give a shit. Like I posted before; you�re looking for
something � anything � to bitch about Obama. On the news last night Obama
was in some sort of trade group meeting and the video was everybody shaking
hands. There were some mini-bows; some deep bows � some according to the
height of the person bowing � and I think one person didn�t bow. I suggest
you hunt down that video. You�ll have all sorts of things to complain about
on the American contingent. I�m sure protocol was the reason for the
meeting.
> It seems to be your opinion that NOT to bow is an insult.
Yep. It�s called manners. It�s also an insult when someone puts out their
hand for a handshake and you intentionally don�t respond.
Listen; if you�ve taken Protocol 101 and believe our country�s been severely
injured because you believe the president has harmed our country in the eyes
of the world; I suggest you post a sign in your yard that�s you�ll be voting
for someone else in hopes of saving our country from ruin.
Jerry (righties are nuts) �n Vegas
- Do not adjust your mind... the fault lies with REALITY!
da pickle
>> No questions at all. YOU stated:
>>
>> "It�s an insult NOT to bow."
>
> Yea, and you couldn�t accept that concept so you made up a couple of
> positions for me in the form of questions.
Try to keep up, Jerry. I accept your concept.
>> Either the Emperor bowed or he did not. I do not know.
>> I am surprised if he did.
>
> And I really don�t give a shit.
It appears that you are posting nonsense on a subject that you do not care
about.
smk17
> On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 10:05:34 -0800, "ChrisRobin"
>
> >Seriously? This is the latest Obama "scandal?" LMAO!
>
> and who said it is a scandal?
Well, FOX had it on their home page for two days? They must think it's
"newsworthy."
If he didn't bow, scandal. If he did bow, scandal
ChrisRobin
Clearly it concerned you enough to start a thread about. Have you changed
your mind, should I file it away with all of the other meaningless crap
you post?
------�
Irish Mike
> On Nov 14 2009 7:08 PM, bub wrote:
>
> > just like for the saudis
> >
> >
>
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2009/11/obama-emperor-akihito-japan.html
>
> Seriously? This is the latest Obama "scandal?" LMAO!
>
> I'm in full support of legitimate Obama criticism, but you guys have
> raised the art of political criticism to a shocking level of stupidity.
> Imagine my surprise.
Chris Robin wrote:
"I'm in full support of legitimate Obama criticism"
LOL! You'd have to pull your head out of the Obama kool aid bucket to do
that. Be honest for once Chris. You're an anti-Jew, anti-Israel,
pro-muslim left wing liberal. You are never going to criticize Obama
regardless of how bad he screws up.
Irish Mike
President Obama has decided to send 40,000 additional troops to fight in
the war against Fox News.
_____________________________________________________________________�
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
FL Turbo
wrote:
It would have been a scandal to NOT bow?
What color is the sky on your planet?
~M~
> And I really don�t give a shit.
Then why go through all these contortions to make up reasons that Obama
should bow to kings and emperors?
--
"I am retarded" - O-PGManager 4/23/2009
bub
<a9d...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
>Clearly it concerned you enough to start a thread about.
so any news story is to be considered a scandal?
ohhh, i forgot this is "everything is a conspiracy" chrissypoo
responding.
>Have you changed
>your mind,
nope, i still think you are a conspiracy dumbfuck.
>should I file it away with all of the other meaningless crap
>you post?
no, file it with all the stuff you think is true and worthwhile, like
cheney was behind blowing up the wtc and why should i spend all that
money on insurance if i only use part of the money i contribute crap
you whine like a little girl about .
Bob T.
> On Nov 16 2009 2:05 PM, ChrisRobin wrote:
>
> > On Nov 14 2009 7:08 PM, bub wrote:
>
> > > just like for the saudis
>
>
>
>
> > Seriously? This is the latest Obama "scandal?" LMAO!
>
> > I'm in full support of legitimate Obama criticism, but you guys have
> > raised the art of political criticism to a shocking level of stupidity.
> > Imagine my surprise.
> Chris Robin wrote:
>
> "I'm in full support of legitimate Obama criticism"
>
> LOL! You'd have to pull your head out of the Obama kool aid bucket to do
> that. Be honest for once Chris. You're an anti-Jew, anti-Israel,
> pro-muslim left wing liberal. You are never going to criticize Obama
> regardless of how bad he screws up.
Chris Robin has _never_ liked Obama, he has criticized Obama from day
one.
Mike, do you ever let facts interfere with your ranting? Oh, silly
question - you never do.
- Bob T.
FL Turbo
>"Jerry Sturdivant" <jer...@cox.net> wrote in message
>news:cOxMm.7185$JC2....@newsfe06.iad...
>
>> And I really don�t give a shit.
>
>Then why go through all these contortions to make up reasons that Obama
>should bow to kings and emperors?
Obama to Protocol Office:
"Hey guys. How do you kowtow, anyway? I'm going to China next, and I
need to know how to do it."
da pickle
>> smk17 --@cornell-- wrote:
>>
>> If he didn't bow, scandal. If he did bow, scandal
>
> It would have been a scandal to NOT bow?
> What color is the sky on your planet?
"smk" is apparently 17 and got to Cornell early
Jerry Sturdivant
"~M~"
>> And I really don�t give a shit.
> Then why go through all these contortions to make
> up reasons that Obama should bow to kings and emperors?
To straighten out idiots and their statements (like yours, above).
Jerry (straightening out idiots) �n Vegas
- Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward.
Jerry Sturdivant
"FL Turbo"
>> Then why go through all these contortions to make
>> up reasons that Obama should bow to kings and emperors?
> Obama to Protocol Office:
>
> "Hey guys. How do you kowtow, anyway? I'm going to
> China next, and I need to know how to do it."
That's for sure. Bush and his administration refused to budget most of his
spending and borrowed heavily from China.
Jerry 'n Vegas
- Smart old dogs CAN learn new tricks...
da pickle
"Jerry Sturdivant"
>> "Hey guys. How do you kowtow, anyway? I'm going to
>> China next, and I need to know how to do it."
>
> That's for sure. Bush and his administration refused to budget most of his
> spending and borrowed heavily from China.
But Bush was also spending money we did not have ... that is why Obama
bowed.
FL Turbo
<jer...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>"FL Turbo"
>
>
>>> Then why go through all these contortions to make
>>> up reasons that Obama should bow to kings and emperors?
>
>> Obama to Protocol Office:
>>
>> "Hey guys. How do you kowtow, anyway? I'm going to
>> China next, and I need to know how to do it."
>
>That's for sure. Bush and his administration refused to budget most of his
>spending and borrowed heavily from China.
>
ButBush !!
ButBush !!
Alim Nassor
Where is the money Obama is borrowing coming from?
Jerry Sturdivant
"da pickle"
Ergo my reference to others believes he needed to kowtow.
Jerry �n Vegas
- An udder failure: Cow that doesn't give milk.
Jerry Sturdivant
"FL Turbo"
>>>> Then why go through all these contortions to make
>>>> up reasons that Obama should bow to kings and emperors?
>>> Obama to Protocol Office:
>>>
>>> "Hey guys. How do you kowtow, anyway? I'm going to
>>> China next, and I need to know how to do it."
>> That's for sure. Bush and his administration refused to budget
>> most of his spending and borrowed heavily from China.
> ButBush !!
> ButBush
But Bush is the reason I was refereeing to. Why do you fear rebuttal to your
statements?
Jerry 'n Vegas
- Wrappers are futile. Chocolate will be assimilated!
Jerry Sturdivant
"Alim Nassor"
>> That's for sure. Bush and his administration refused to
>> budget most of his spending and borrowed heavily from China.
> Where is the money Obama is borrowing coming from?
Mostly from China. But Obama is required to borrow until he can get tax
increases in. Bush refused to budget his additional expenditures (increase
taxes). He passed them off to the next administration.
Is it all coming clear to you now?
Jerry 'n Vegas
- No man's liberty is safe while legislature is in session.
Alim Nassor
Yeah buddy, tax increases during a recession are sure to work.
Increasing the federal deficit to record numbers is also smart. So
smart that now he is warning about a double dip recession because of
his increase in the debt.
Jerry Sturdivant
"Alim Nassor"
>> Mostly from China. But Obama is required to borrow until he can get tax
>> increases in. Bush refused to budget his additional expenditures
>> (increase
>> taxes). He passed them off to the next administration.
>>
>> Is it all coming clear to you now?
> Yeah buddy, tax increases during a recession are sure to work.
I guess it's not clear to you. Stop watching FAUX and get your factual news
from NBC. Your 'tax increases' don't take effect until 2011.
> Increasing the federal deficit to record numbers is also smart.
Suppose you tell us how to stimulate (like Bush was trying to do) without
borrowing.
Jerry 'n Vegas
- Every absurdity has a champion to defend it.
FL Turbo
wrote:
>On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 08:35:20 -0800, "Jerry Sturdivant"
><jer...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>"FL Turbo"
>>
>>
>>>>>> Then why go through all these contortions to make
>>>>>> up reasons that Obama should bow to kings and emperors?
>>
>>>>> Obama to Protocol Office:
>>>>>
>>>>> "Hey guys. How do you kowtow, anyway? I'm going to
>>>>> China next, and I need to know how to do it."
>>
>>>> That's for sure. Bush and his administration refused to budget
>>>> most of his spending and borrowed heavily from China.
>>
>>> ButBush !!
>>> ButBush
>>
>>But Bush is the reason I was refereeing to. Why do you fear rebuttal to your
>>statements?
>>
Why do you always blame everything on Bush?
All he ever did was hold hands with that Saudi guy.
Is that so wrong?
It's not as if he bent over to check out a guy's crotch, like Obama
did twice already.
Alim Nassor
Immediate tax cuts for businesses and individuals. Some targetted
stimulus instead of throwing trillions in newly printed money around
like it was fucking confetti. That would result in some short term
deficit, but not the staggerring numbers like we see now that will
NEVER be repaid.
ramashiva
> On Nov 20, 9:34 am, "Jerry Sturdivant" <jerr...@cox.net> wrote:
> > Suppose you tell us how to stimulate (like Bush was trying to do) without
> > borrowing.
> Immediate tax cuts for businesses and individuals.
Tax cuts reduce tax revenues, which increases the deficit, which
requires more borrowing. Try again.
William Coleman (ramashiva)
Alim Nassor
Tax cuts also stimulate the economy much more effectively than so
called stimulus packages. I'm not opposed to short term borrowing to
cover that. I am opposed to trillions in new money being created
along with hundreds of billions borrowed that can never be repaid.
The dollar is dropping like a rock and it is because of Obama's fiscal
policies.
Alim Nassor
Both Kennedy's and Reagans tax cuts resulted in increased revenues to
the treasury.
ramashiva
> On Nov 20, 9:09 pm, ramashiva <ramash...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > On Nov 20, 5:17 pm, Alim Nassor <alimnas...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 20, 9:34 am, "Jerry Sturdivant" <jerr...@cox.net> wrote:
> > > > Suppose you tell us how to stimulate (like Bush was trying to do) without
> > > > borrowing.
> > > Immediate tax cuts for businesses and individuals.
> > Tax cuts reduce tax revenues, which increases the deficit, which
> > requires more borrowing. Try again.
> Tax cuts also stimulate the economy much more effectively than so
> called stimulus packages.
100% false. You need to stop living in the economic dream world of an
exploded economic theory. Actual empirical studies of the effect of
tax cuts on GDP versus the effect of direct government spending to
create jobs show government spending to be much more effective at
stimulating the economy. I have cited these studies before, but
roughly, every dollar of tax cuts increases GDP by about $0.60, while
every dollar of direct government spending increases GDP by about
$1.80.
> I'm not opposed to short term borrowing to cover that. I am opposed to trillions in new money being created
> along with hundreds of billions borrowed that can never be repaid.
Trillions are also being borrowed. Let's not forget that, when Bush
took office, the federal government was running an annual surplus of
$200 billion. The projected deficit for the current fiscal year was
$1.4 trillion in December 2008, so it is all on Bush. That is the net
result of the Bush tax cuts.
The money will be repaid. Either through higher taxes, or more likely
by just monetizing the debt, which is essentially what is happening
now.
Tax cuts are almost always a bad idea and have bad results. Remember
Dr. Friedman's famous dictum that the true level of taxation is the
level of government spending. Tax cuts when the government is running
a deficit are an illusion. Such tax cuts are criminal, since they
just shift the tax burden to future generations.
The only time tax cuts make sense is when the government is running a
surplus and the national debt is zero.
> The dollar is dropping like a rock and it is because of Obama's fiscal policies.
No, the dollar is dropping like a rock because Obama inherited a $1.4
trillion deficit from Bush, and the dire economic situation required a
large stimulus package, which has pushed the deficit to around $2
trillion for the current fiscal year.
Yes, these huge deficits are one of two major causes of the dollar's
decline. But do not blame Obama's fiscal policies, when he inherited
a total mess, thanks to eight years of mismanagement of the economy
according to the principles of an exploded economic theory to which
you still give credence.
The other major cause of the dollar's decline is, of course, the
Federal Reserve flooding the financial system with trillions of
dollars to insure adequate liquidity. Right now, most of this excess
liquidity is not being loaned out, but increases bank reserves. If
the economy heats up, supposedly the Fed will withdraw this excess
liquidity, thus supposedly preventing severe inflation.
I am skeptical of the Fed's ability to pull this off, as I am sure you
are. For that reason, I foresee severe inflation and a continued
devaluation of the dollar.
William Coleman (ramashiva)
Clave
news:d88585ae-ba29-4f03...@s21g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
==========================================================================
No.
Jim
ramashiva
> On Nov 20, 9:09 pm, ramashiva <ramash...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > On Nov 20, 5:17 pm, Alim Nassor <alimnas...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 20, 9:34 am, "Jerry Sturdivant" <jerr...@cox.net> wrote:
> > > > Suppose you tell us how to stimulate (like Bush was trying to do) without
> > > > borrowing.
> > > Immediate tax cuts for businesses and individuals.
> > Tax cuts reduce tax revenues, which increases the deficit, which
> > requires more borrowing. Try again.
> Both Kennedy's and Reagans tax cuts resulted in increased revenues to
> the treasury.
Why do you persist in repeating fairy tales which have no basis in
reality??? When you say "increased revenues" you are implying that
tax revenues after the tax cut were greater than they would have been
if there was no tax cut.
The actual data do not support this claim. In fact, in the case of
both the Reagan and Bush tax cuts, tax revenues were significantly
less than if there had been no tax cut.
The Reagan case is not clear cut, because after the Reagan tax cuts of
1981, his advisors saw a precipitous drop in tax revenues, and they
realized the deficits were going to be huge, so they rushed through a
huge tax increase in 1982. Even so, it took five years for inflation
adjusted tax revenues to return to 1980 levels. And this was a much
larger economy, so clearly the tax revenues would have been much
higher in 1986 if there had been no tax cut.
The Bush case is more clear cut. Tax revenues actually declined for
several years. Yes, eventually tax revenues started increasing,
because the economy was growing. You seriously think we would be
running a $1.4 trillion deficit if the Clinton tax rates had
continued??? Just how delusional are you?
William Coleman (ramashiva)
Clave
news:c29e11b2-6e21-4dde...@a10g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
==================================================================
He's not delusional, he's fucking dishonest.
What's *your* problem that after all this time you still can't see that?
Jim
ramashiva
wrote:
> "ramashiva" <ramash...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
Well, as you know, I like Alim and agree with him on many issues. But
he still accepts as dogma the exploded theories of supply side
economics.
Tax cuts do not result in increased tax revenues when you are on the
left side of the inflection point of the Laffer Curve. All empirical
data suggest that we are on the left side of the inflection point.
Tax cuts do not result in increasing the GDP growth rate. Nor does
raising taxes decrease the GDP growth rate. 24 years of data from the
Reagan, Clinton, and Bush Presidencies make that perfectly clear.
GDP growth rate during the eight years of Clinton's Presidency was
higher than either the eight Reagan years or the eight Bush years.
This basic fact cannot be reconciled with the idea that lower tax
rates mean higher GDP growth rates.
I am hoping that Alim is smart enough that he will realize that he has
swallowed a pack of lies, and that reality directly contradicts the
fantasy world of supply side economics.
William Coleman (ramashiva)
Clave
<...>
> I am hoping that Alim is smart enough that he will realize that he has
> swallowed a pack of lies, and that reality directly contradicts the
> fantasy world of supply side economics.
Realizing that one has "swallowed a pack of lies" implies the ability to
admit one is wrong and in this case, has been for a long time about a lot
of stuff.
Put that characterization on "Alim Nassor" and the phrase "smart enough" and
try to keep a straight face.
He's not delusional, he's a degenerate liar.
Jim
ramashiva
wrote:
> "ramashiva" <ramash...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:8361435f-03a4-4068...@u36g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
> > I am hoping that Alim is smart enough that he will realize that he has
> > swallowed a pack of lies, and that reality directly contradicts the
> > fantasy world of supply side economics.
> Realizing that one has "swallowed a pack of lies" implies the ability to
> admit one is wrong and in this case, has been for a long time about a lot
> of stuff.
> Put that characterization on "Alim Nassor" and the phrase "smart enough" and
> try to keep a straight face.
> He's not delusional, he's a degenerate liar.
Well, I disagree. I think Alim is pretty fucking smart and is able to
admit he is wrong when empirical data show that everything he believes
about economics is a lie.
I also think I have a much better chance of convincing him of his
fundamental errors than you do, since Alim and I have established a
rapport and mutual respect, whereas you, in your inimitable style,
have totally alienated the guy. He isn't going to listen to anything
you say.
William Coleman (ramashiva)
Clave
> "ramashiva" <ramash...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:8361435f-03a4-4068...@u36g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
> > I am hoping that Alim is smart enough that he will realize that he has
> > swallowed a pack of lies, and that reality directly contradicts the
> > fantasy world of supply side economics.
> Realizing that one has "swallowed a pack of lies" implies the ability to
> admit one is wrong and in this case, has been for a long time about a lot
> of stuff.
> Put that characterization on "Alim Nassor" and the phrase "smart enough"
> and
> try to keep a straight face.
> He's not delusional, he's a degenerate liar.
Well, I disagree. I think Alim is pretty fucking smart and is able to
admit he is wrong when empirical data show that everything he believes
about economics is a lie.
=======================================================================
We'll see, shan't we?
Jim
ramashiva
wrote:
> "ramashiva" <ramash...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:15313f86-ce48-4934...@h14g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 20, 11:54 pm, "Clave" <ClaviusNoSpamDam...@cablespeed.com> wrote:
> > "ramashiva" <ramash...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> >news:8361435f-03a4-4068...@u36g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
> > > I am hoping that Alim is smart enough that he will realize that he has
> > > swallowed a pack of lies, and that reality directly contradicts the
> > > fantasy world of supply side economics.
> > Realizing that one has "swallowed a pack of lies" implies the ability to
> > admit one is wrong and in this case, has been for a long time about a lot
> > of stuff.
> > Put that characterization on "Alim Nassor" and the phrase "smart enough"
> > and try to keep a straight face.
> > He's not delusional, he's a degenerate liar.
> Well, I disagree. I think Alim is pretty fucking smart and is able to
> admit he is wrong when empirical data show that everything he believes
> about economics is a lie.
> =======================================================================
> We'll see, shan't we?
Well, I am not hopeful, even in Alim's case. I have a lot of
experience arguing with advocates of supply side economics. It's like
a religion with them. No amount of facts and logic will convince
these people that everything they believe about economics is wrong.
I am hoping that Alim is not a true believer, but a more pragmatic,
reality-oriented person who can recognize when reality contradicts
some of his basic assumptions about economics.
William Coleman (ramashiva)
Clave
<...>
> I am hoping that Alim is not a true believer, but a more pragmatic,
> reality-oriented person who can recognize when reality contradicts
> some of his basic assumptions about economics.
Your hope against his entire posting history.
I'm at a loss as to which of you is the bigger, more hopeless dumbass.
<...washes hands...>
Jim
ramashiva
wrote:
> "ramashiva" <ramash...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:c940829b-fb40-4a26...@f20g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
> > I am hoping that Alim is not a true believer, but a more pragmatic,
> > reality-oriented person who can recognize when reality contradicts
> > some of his basic assumptions about economics.
> Your hope against his entire posting history.
Alim's entire posting history convinces me that he is a very smart guy
who is quite knowledgeable on many subjects.
> I'm at a loss as to which of you is the bigger, more hopeless dumbass.
You can't be serious. Maybe you have forgotten that a majority of
veteran posters interested enough to vote voted that you are dumber
than Irish Mike.
I know for sure that my IQ exceeds yours by several standard
deviations, and I would be willing to bet that Alim would also trounce
you in an IQ test.
> <...washes hands...>
Good. You have a nasty habit of inserting yourself into conversations
where your opinions and input are neither wanted nor welcome.
Go the fuck away.
Leave me the fuck alone.
William Coleman (ramashiva)
Alim Nassor
What actual good is an end to a recession that is coupled with
disastrous inflation? That is why i think there will be a big double
dip recession. Economic growth is bound to be stifled by the
inflation we both anticipate.
Alim Nassor
wrote:
> "Alim Nassor" <alimnas...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Yes
Clave
> "ramashiva" <ramash...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:c940829b-fb40-4a26...@f20g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
> > I am hoping that Alim is not a true believer, but a more pragmatic,
> > reality-oriented person who can recognize when reality contradicts
> > some of his basic assumptions about economics.
> Your hope against his entire posting history.
Alim's entire posting history convinces me that he is a very smart guy
who is quite knowledgeable on many subjects...
======================================================================
Slurp slop slip slip suck suck gobble...
> I'm at a loss as to which of you is the bigger, more hopeless dumbass.
You can't be serious. Maybe you have forgotten that a majority of
veteran posters interested enough to vote voted that you are dumber
than Irish Mike.
====================================================================
How many people can't be wrong, dumbass?
Oh, right -- time for me to get off your lawn.
Jim
Alim Nassor
wrote:
> "ramashiva" <ramash...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
My statement was "Both Kennedy's and Reagans tax cuts resulted in
increased revenues to
the treasury."
The kennedy tax cuts were signed by LBJ in February of 64
Actual total tax receipts
1963 106.6 billion
1964 112.6
1965 116.8
1966 130.8
1967 148.8
LBJ did not raise taxes until 1968. So, my statement that revenues
increased un Kennedy's cuts is indeed factual
Reagan pushed his tax cuts through quickly
Actual receipts
1980 517.1 billion
1981 599.3
1982 617.8
1983 600.6
1984 666.5
1985 734.0
1986 769.2
1987 854.3
1988 909.3
1989 991.2
1990 1 trillion
So again, my statement is factual.
Reagan did sign various tax increases but all of them added together
did not overtake his tax cuts
Tax data from http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=203
Clave, calling me dishonest over the internet is such a brave thing.
Don't forget, yellow streak out coward.
Alim Nassor
wrote:
> "ramashiva" <ramash...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
Still being brave there Jim. Remember, yellow streak out.
Alim Nassor
Show me some hard data and I will take a look.
Clave is too cowardly to even engage in a discussion.
ramashiva
> Show me some hard data and I will take a look.
You already provided a link to the data, but you are looking at the
wrong column. We are talking about cutting income tax rates, so the
relevant column is the first column, "Individual Income Taxes".
The other point is that when you say cutting taxes increased tax
revenues, you are clearly implying that tax revenues increased more
than if taxes had not been cut.
Take a look at the data. First, let's look at the Bush tax cuts. You
can see that tax revenues did not reach 2000 levels until 2006. This
was a much larger economy, so there is no question that 2006 tax
revenues would have been much higher if the 2000 tax rates had
remained in effect.
Now look at the Clinton data. If cutting taxes increases tax revenue,
then increasing taxes should decrease tax revenue. In fact, this was
widely predicted by supply side true believers. Of course, tax
revenues actually increased, which is exactly what a rational person
would expect when tax rates are increased.
So the data from both the Bush years and Clinton years directly
contradict your claim that cutting taxes increases tax revenues.
Again, with the implication that "increase" means a greater increase
than if taxes hadn't been cut.
The Reagan case is more complex, because, as I said, a large tax
increase was imposed in 1982 which largely reversed the 1981 tax
cuts. If you look at the data, you see that tax revenues increased
every year from 1972 through 1980. So the fact that tax revenues
continued to increase during the period 1981 to 1986 is hardly
surprising. The economy was growing. There is nothing in the data
which suggests that tax revenues during this period increased at a
greater rate than if there had been no tax cuts.
Similar remarks apply to the Kennedy tax cuts.
So we have two cases, Bush and Clinton, where the actual data directly
contradict your claim that cutting taxes increases tax revenues.
Again, with the understanding that "increase" means a greater increase
than if taxes had not been cut.
The Reagan and Kennedy examples are inconclusive, and provide no
evidence to support your case.
William Coleman (ramashiva)
Alim Nassor
Knowing that receipts would have been higher had taxes not been cut is
speculation.
To be sure, simply stating that tax increases or decreases ALWAYS
result in one thing or another is simplistic. Economic conditions at
the time have an effect.
Bush had an economic disaster early in his term in the 9/11 attacks.
I believe his tax policies resulted in a much shorter and shallower
economic contraction than would ahve otherwise happened. Then he
decided to behave like a drunken sailor with 30 days leave and a
paycheck in his pocket.
I believe that Obama could have made different economic choices than
he did . I think it would have been better, though more painful in
the short term, to allow the financial institutions to fail. Al that
has been done now is to delay the inevitable.
Alim Nassor
Thanls for the polite discussion. We may disagree, but we can be
civil and have a pleasant talk about it. I'm guessing Clave had
severe diaper rash that week in kindergarden where he should have
learned this.
Jerry Sturdivant
"Alim Nassor"
>> Suppose you tell us how to stimulate (like Bush was
>> trying to do) without borrowing.
> Immediate tax cuts for businesses and individuals.
That puts people to work? They cut business taxes and now we have the press
reporting how CEO's are back to giving themselves big bonuses.
Cut taxes for people out of work?
> Some targetted stimulus instead of throwing trillions in
> newly printed money around like it was fucking confetti.
Targeted like Bush did? Send everybody a check? That's what Obama is doing,
but doing it by creating jobs; not just mailing a check.
> That would result in some short term deficit,
Huh? Adding to our national debt is 'short-term defect?"
> but not the staggerring numbers like we see now that will
> NEVER be repaid.
It's called stimulus. Even the GOP says more is needed. Never repaid? Try
reading the bill (like IMike says nobody does): Tax increase in 2011.
Jerry 'n Vegas
- Assume that everything here is yours. (Cat philosophy).
ramashiva
> Knowing that receipts would have been higher had taxes not been cut is
> speculation.
Not really. Higher tax rate applied to same GDP results in higher tax
revenues. There is no reason to think that GDP would be higher
because of tax cuts. That's just another right-wing myth easily
debunked with facts.
> To be sure, simply stating that tax increases or decreases ALWAYS
> result in one thing or another is simplistic. Economic conditions at
> the time have an effect.
> Bush had an economic disaster early in his term in the 9/11 attacks.
> I believe his tax policies resulted in a much shorter and shallower
> economic contraction than would ahve otherwise happened.
I don't think so. The recession started in February 2001 and ended in
November 2001. It takes longer than that for changes in fiscal policy
to have an effect. By the way, the fact that the 2001 recession was
short and shallow, despite the fact that 9/11 was a huge economic
disaster, shows the economy that Clinton turned over to Bush was
fundamentally sound.
> Then he
> decided to behave like a drunken sailor with 30 days leave and a
> paycheck in his pocket.
That explains the huge deficits. It doesn't explain the obvious fact
that tax revenues decreased after the Bush tax cuts.
> I believe that Obama could have made different economic choices than
> he did . I think it would have been better, though more painful in
> the short term, to allow the financial institutions to fail.
You are a little fuzzy on the timeline. All those decisions were made
by the Bush administration.
> Al that has been done now is to delay the inevitable.
What exactly do you think is inevitable?
William Coleman (ramashiva)
Alim Nassor
A currency collapse.
ramashiva
> On Nov 21, 11:38 am, ramashiva <ramash...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > What exactly do you think is inevitable?
> A currency collapse.
That is certainly a possibility. I think a slow decline, with gold
topping $2000/ounce, is more likely. Inflation is coming, sooner or
later, and the Fed will be forced to raise interest rates to fight
inflation. Higher interest rates will, of course, strengthen and
stabilize the dollar.
We are already on a silver standard of sorts. The Mint is minting
American Silver Eagles, each containing one troy ounce of silver.
Amazingly, they can't mint them fast enough to keep up with demand. I
recently bought 20 of them at just over $20 each at Arizona Stamp and
Coin in Tucson. They are truly beautiful coins.
But the government is now providing a way for citizens to convert
dollars to silver, but not at a fixed rate. Still, this is progress.
William Coleman (ramashiva)
Alim Nassor
20 bucks a piece? That was a great deal. I tend to stay away from
the silver eagles because of the premium, but you stole those.
A slow collapse is probably more likely than my fear of a sudden
collapse, but I think gold will go WAY above 2000. I think silver is
headed for over 100 possibly 200. But if the currency collapses to
that level swapping silver or gold for dollars would be foolish. Gold
and silver will be a barter commodity if it happens.
Thanks again for being civil. I enjoy the arguments and I
thinkeveryone benefits if it doesn't degenerate into a Clave Beldin
like mud slinging fest. I am not above saying I learn something from
nearly every argument on here. Even from those 2 guys.
ramashiva
> On Nov 21, 10:08 pm, ramashiva <ramash...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > On Nov 21, 6:52 pm, Alim Nassor <alimnas...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 21, 11:38 am, ramashiva <ramash...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > > > What exactly do you think is inevitable?
> > > A currency collapse.
> > That is certainly a possibility. I think a slow decline, with gold
> > topping $2000/ounce, is more likely. Inflation is coming, sooner or
> > later, and the Fed will be forced to raise interest rates to fight
> > inflation. Higher interest rates will, of course, strengthen and
> > stabilize the dollar.
> > We are already on a silver standard of sorts. The Mint is minting
> > American Silver Eagles, each containing one troy ounce of silver.
> > Amazingly, they can't mint them fast enough to keep up with demand. I
> > recently bought 20 of them at just over $20 each at Arizona Stamp and
> > Coin in Tucson. They are truly beautiful coins.
> > But the government is now providing a way for citizens to convert
> > dollars to silver, but not at a fixed rate. Still, this is progress.
> 20 bucks a piece? That was a great deal. I tend to stay away from
> the silver eagles because of the premium, but you stole those.
No, I paid the asking price. I left the receipt and the coins at my
mother's house, so I don't have the exact price I paid. The coins are
in great condition too. I would say they are "uncirculated", although
I have no expertise in grading the condition of coins.
I also bought two ten-ounce bars of silver at $192 each, and $20 face
value 1964 Kennedy halves for just over $120 per $10 face value.
Arizona Stamp and Coin is located at the corner of Speedway and Swan,
for anyone interested. They do charge a 3% fee for credit cards. No
fee for ATM cards. I didn't ask, but I imagine they waive the sales
tax if you pay cash. Other coin stores I have dealt with in Dallas
and Las Vegas have that policy. In other words, they don't record or
report the transaction. Paying cash is the ideal way to go if you
don't want there to be any record of your owning gold or silver.
> A slow collapse is probably more likely than my fear of a sudden
> collapse, but I think gold will go WAY above 2000. I think silver is
> headed for over 100 possibly 200.
That's not likely. The traditional gold/silver ratio is 50 to 1. A
silver price of $100/ounce would imply a gold price of $5000/ounce.
Of course, anything is possible if hyperinflation sets in.
Right now, the gold/silver ratio is 62 to 1, so silver remains
undervalued relative to gold, at least according to the historical
norm.
The 17 to 1 ratio in 1980, when gold hit $850/ounce and silver hit $50/
ounce, was an aberration caused by the Hunt brothers attempts to
corner the silver market.
> But if the currency collapses to
> that level swapping silver or gold for dollars would be foolish. Gold
> and silver will be a barter commodity if it happens.
No, gold and silver will be real money, just as they have always been
and always will be.
I am really on the horns of a dilemma right now. Obviously, I regret
having sold all my gold mining stocks when gold hit $1000/ounce. I
have made a nice profit during the recent runup of the DJIA, although
not nearly as much as I would have made by sticking with gold mining
stocks.
It looks like gold is headed for $2000/ounce in the next year,
although some analysts think gold is overbought right now. That kind
of rise in the price of gold would result in at least a quadrupling in
value of gold mining stocks.
So do I stand pat with my blue chip stock portfolio, continuing to bet
on a big stock market rally in the next few months, or do I sell
everything and put it all in gold mining stocks?
So far, my timing in buying and selling gold mining stocks has been
nearly perfect, with the obvious recent exception of getting out of
gold mining stocks when gold hit $1000/ounce.
Here is what my portfolio will look like on Monday after I execute a
couple of trades --
FCX - 100 shares
GE - 300 shares
INTC - 200 shares
RRC - 100 shares
WFC - 100 shares
RRC, which is a play on the price of natural gas, has been a big
disappointment. I have lost about $700 on RRC, due to the recent
decline in the natural gas price. I don't understand what's going on,
since the price of natural gas normally increases dramatically every
winter. I guess the commodities speculators are betting on a mild
winter.
Anyway, I really don't have a clear idea of what I should do. I know
what you would advise. Go for the gold.
> Thanks again for being civil.
I always try to be civil with those who are civil with me. Over the
years, I have tried to cultivate friendly relationships with
conservatives whom I perceive to be reasonable. Popinjay and I used
to have intense flame wars, but over the years we have grown to
respect each other. Will Reich, Follow, and Howard Treesong are three
other conservatives with whom I have civil relationships. There are a
few other conservatives with whom I normally have civil conversations.
I suggest you likewise try to cultivate civil relationships with the
reasonable liberals on this board. Unfortunately, RGP is populated
with a lot of nasty, unreasonable liberals. Some of the liberals whom
I think you will find reasonable and civil would include Bill Bradley,
OPGM, and Bob T. Also John Savage, AKA ruylopez. John is scary
smart. Definitely in the 200+ IQ range. There are a few other
reasonable liberals here. You will find out who they are.
William Coleman (ramashiva)
Alim Nassor
Good deals on all of it. The Ebay price has been well about 13x this
week.
>
> Arizona Stamp and Coin is located at the corner of Speedway and Swan,
> for anyone interested. They do charge a 3% fee for credit cards. No
> fee for ATM cards. I didn't ask, but I imagine they waive the sales
> tax if you pay cash. Other coin stores I have dealt with in Dallas
> and Las Vegas have that policy. In other words, they don't record or
> report the transaction. Paying cash is the ideal way to go if you
> don't want there to be any record of your owning gold or silver.
>
> > A slow collapse is probably more likely than my fear of a sudden
> > collapse, but I think gold will go WAY above 2000. I think silver is
> > headed for over 100 possibly 200.
>
> That's not likely. The traditional gold/silver ratio is 50 to 1. A
> silver price of $100/ounce would imply a gold price of $5000/ounce.
> Of course, anything is possible if hyperinflation sets in.
>
Here is a chart I use for the ratio.
http://www.gold-eagle.com/charts/gegsr.html
Before the runup in 1980 the ratio moved in a pretty tight band of
22-35 with a few peaks and valleys outside that range. Since 1980 it
looks like the spread has been 50 to 80 and has touched 100. Right
now we are at about 62. I really believe silver has somehow been held
artificially low. Nearly all of the gold ever mined in the world (5
billion ounces) still exists as some form of recoverable metal,
bullion, coins, jewelry. Silver even though more than 45 billion
ounces have been mined actually has less still in recoverable amounts
than gold. Over 90% of all silver ever mined has been consumed or
discarded in ways that are not easily recoverable. I think this will
start to become the factor that leads to a phenominal rise in silver
prices and that is why I quit buying gold at all and have concentrated
on silver.
Here is an excerpt from an article that supports my thinking:
Ancient Egyptians first recognized that silver was mined at quantities
16 times greater than that of gold. Up until the 20th century the
trading ratio of silver to gold has fluctuated from as low as 10:1 and
high as 20:1. A strange phenomenon took place in the 20th century; the
silver/gold ratio fluctuated at higher ratios, from 15:1 to nearly
100:1. It is a known fact that gold as a precious metal is hoarded
while silver as an industrial precious metal is consumed. Great
quantities of silver are used in the areas of photography, coinage,
electric components, athletic apparel, batteries and medicinal
biocide. At current rates of industrial use, more silver is being used
than being mined and recycled. Some speculate that there may actually
be more gold above ground than silver at the present time and the
current trading ratio of approximately 64:1 should be 1:1, and
possibly inverted
> Right now, the gold/silver ratio is 62 to 1, so silver remains
> undervalued relative to gold, at least according to the historical
> norm.
>
> The 17 to 1 ratio in 1980, when gold hit $850/ounce and silver hit $50/
> ounce, was an aberration caused by the Hunt brothers attempts to
> corner the silver market.
>
> > But if the currency collapses to
> > that level swapping silver or gold for dollars would be foolish. Gold
> > and silver will be a barter commodity if it happens.
>
> No, gold and silver will be real money, just as they have always been
> and always will be.
Yes, I phrased it badly. Gold and silver will be money. Fiat currency
will be suspect and swapping silver or gold for paper will be
foolish. Why swap silver or gold for paper that may continue to
collapse.
>
> I am really on the horns of a dilemma right now. Obviously, I regret
> having sold all my gold mining stocks when gold hit $1000/ounce. I
> have made a nice profit during the recent runup of the DJIA, although
> not nearly as much as I would have made by sticking with gold mining
> stocks.
>
> It looks like gold is headed for $2000/ounce in the next year,
> although some analysts think gold is overbought right now. That kind
> of rise in the price of gold would result in at least a quadrupling in
> value of gold mining stocks.
>
> So do I stand pat with my blue chip stock portfolio, continuing to bet
> on a big stock market rally in the next few months, or do I sell
> everything and put it all in gold mining stocks?
>
> So far, my timing in buying and selling gold mining stocks has been
> nearly perfect, with the obvious recent exception of getting out of
> gold mining stocks when gold hit $1000/ounce.
I'd be pretty happy with your results. It's almost impossible to time
the market exactly. My daddy always says, the bulls and the bears get
rich, but the hogs get slaughtered.
>
> Here is what my portfolio will look like on Monday after I execute a
> couple of trades --
>
> FCX - 100 shares
> GE - 300 shares
> INTC - 200 shares
> RRC - 100 shares
> WFC - 100 shares
>
> RRC, which is a play on the price of natural gas, has been a big
> disappointment. I have lost about $700 on RRC, due to the recent
> decline in the natural gas price. I don't understand what's going on,
> since the price of natural gas normally increases dramatically every
> winter. I guess the commodities speculators are betting on a mild
> winter.
I read an article on why natural gas prices continue to drop. Large
new sources of shale gas have been brought to market in the US.
There is almost no gas being imported now. I'll see if I can find it.
Here it is, I found it quicker than I thought.
Here is the important excerpt, " Tony Hayward, BP's chief executive,
said proven natural gas reserves around the world have risen to 1.2
trillion barrels of oil equivalent, enough for 60 years' supply – and
rising fast."
I think I would get out on gas unless you want to short it.
> Anyway, I really don't have a clear idea of what I should do. I know
> what you would advise. Go for the gold.
Naw, settle for the silver LOL.
>
> > Thanks again for being civil.
>
> I always try to be civil with those who are civil with me. Over the
> years, I have tried to cultivate friendly relationships with
> conservatives whom I perceive to be reasonable. Popinjay and I used
> to have intense flame wars, but over the years we have grown to
> respect each other. Will Reich, Follow, and Howard Treesong are three
> other conservatives with whom I have civil relationships. There are a
> few other conservatives with whom I normally have civil conversations.
>
> I suggest you likewise try to cultivate civil relationships with the
> reasonable liberals on this board. Unfortunately, RGP is populated
> with a lot of nasty, unreasonable liberals. Some of the liberals whom
> I think you will find reasonable and civil would include Bill Bradley,
> OPGM, and Bob T. Also John Savage, AKA ruylopez. John is scary
> smart. Definitely in the 200+ IQ range. There are a few other
> reasonable liberals here. You will find out who they are.
>
> William Coleman (ramashiva)- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -