OT: Special for Bill Bradley
ramashiva
I would return to RGP. I told him, "maybe never." He asked me to at
least come back and give my perspective on the 2008 elections. Since
Bill has always been very nice to me, except when debating same sex
marriage, I decided to honor his request. After all, he did send me
a bunch of autographed 2+2 books, most of which were newer editions
than those in my library.
So here is my succinct impression of the 2008 presidential election so
far. I will just make a few comments about each major candidate, then
a few miscellaneous observations about the election in general.
Democrats --
Hillary Clinton -- You know I have always been a strong Hillary
supporter, and I haven't changed my mind. You can check the
archives. I have posts dating back to 2005 calling for a Clinton/
Obama ticket in 2008. Some of her positions bother me, like being
hawkish on the Iraq War, and voting for the Iran resolution which some
say gives Bush the green light to attack Iran.
Despite these differences, I still think she is far and away the most
intelligent and most competent of all the candidates from both
parties. There have been a lot of polls showing she would trounce any
Republican candidate except McCain. The argument that she is
unelectable is the purest nonsense.
Barack Obama -- I really like the guy. He is charismatic and a great
public speaker. Politically, I am closer to Obama than Clinton. The
one thing that really bothers me about Obama is his tendency to use
right-wing talking points from sources like Faux News, Matt Drudge,
and Bob Novak. He attacks other Democrats and important Democratic
constituencies like unions and trial lawyers with these talking
points. He talks about "fixing" Social Security. Please. That is a
straight right-wing talking point. Social Security, as I have
explained many times, doesn't need fixing. With all our other
economic problems, including huge trade and budget deficits, $9
trillion in national debt, and Medicare and Medicaid facing financial
meltdown in the near future, it makes absolutely no sense to try to
"fix" a program which is solvent for at least the next 35 years. That
is assuming an average GDP growth rate of less that 2% annually during
that time period. If the economy continues to grow at a 3% annual
rate, as it has for many years, the Social Security Trust Fund never
runs out of money. The fact that Obama doesn't know this, and panders
to right-wing delusions about Social Security, really bothers me.
John Edwards -- Again, I really like the guy. Charismatic and
excellent public speaker. Of the three major candidates, Edwards
most closely reflects my views. The one thing that bothers me about
Edwards is that he sends his cancer-stricken wife out to be his
attack dog.
I am disappointed in all three candidates in that none of them are
proposing universal single payer health care, which is the only viable
solution to the health care crisis in this country and the imminent
financial meltdown of Medicare and Medicaid. Instead, they are all
proposing plans which keep the insurance companies making hundreds of
billions per year and which guarantee that all doctors become
extremely rich.
All these plans would be better than what we have now, and everybody
would be insured, but these plans will do little or nothing to
increase efficiency and reduce costs of health care. Reducing health
care costs is essential if Medicare and Medicaid are to be saved.
It's so simple. Just make Medicare available to everyone. As I have
posted many times, Medicare has much lower overhead and provides
equivalent health care at a much lower cost than private sector health
insurance. No big new government bureaucracy would need to be
created. Since everything is computerized, only a modest increase in
the size of the Medicare bureaucracy would be required.
Republicans --
Mitt Romney -- A complete airhead and pathological liar. Need I say
more? Naturally, Mitt is Mo Ron Charles favorite candidate. Do any
of you remember when Mo Ron told you to short oil futures any time the
price went over $50/barrel? If you followed his advice and invested a
significant percentage of your net worth, then of course you are now
penniless, because oil futures are highly leveraged. Mo Ron has
repeatedly displayed his complete lack of understanding of the basics
of economics, as I have demonstrated in many posts.
Rudy Giuliani -- An arrogant, mobbed up, lying asshole. Need I say
more? Naturally, Rudy is Bell Ding Bat's favorite candidate. Of all
the right-wing nutcases on RGP, Bell Ding Bat is certainly the most
clueless. There are certain conservatives, like Bill Kristol and
Charles Krauthammer, who have the uncanny ability to be wrong about
absolutely everything. Bell Ding Bat is one of these.
John McCain -- Shameless Bush fellator and berserk warmonger. "Bomb,
bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran." (Sung to the tune of Barbara Ann by the
Beach Boys.)
At one time, I respected McCain. Even though he is extremely
conservative, I thought he was at least honest, which is a rare trait
among Republicans. And I respected the fact that he opposed the
catastrophic Bush tax cuts, and that he advocates a sensible policy on
undocumented workers. But since he has become warmonger in chief, I
can't stand the guy. He is the only Republican with a realistic
chance to defeat whomever the Democrats nominate.
Mike Huckabee -- A Southern Baptist from Hope, Arkansas who is a
former Arkansas governor and a muscian. Of all the Republican
candidates, he is the only one who is a decent human being. I think I
would find him most tolerable as a Republican President, although
having a President who doesn't believe in evolution would be a
mindblower, to say the least.
By the way, you may remember a post I made sometime back, when polls
showed McCain and Giuliani way out in front of everyone else, that
neither McCain nor Giuliani would be the Republican nominee. That
prediction is looking pretty good right now.
Ron Paul -- Needless to say, Paul Genaro's favorite candidate. Since
I am a left-wing libertarian, I really like some of Ron Paul's views.
End the Iraq War now? Agreed. Repeal the PATRIOT Act? Agreed.
Abolish all drug laws? Agreed.
Abolish Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid? Are you fucking
nuts? Get out of the United Nations? Are you fucking nuts? Abolish
the income tax? Are you fucking nuts?
One thing that really bothers me about Ron Paul is his enthusiastic
support by white supremacists and Nazis. That doesn't mean that Paul
is either of these, but it is very troubling that he receives such
enthusiastic support from the lunatic fringe of the right-wing.
On the election in general, it looks like the economy, not the Iraq
War, will be the dominant issue. The MSM has brainwashed most people
into thinking that the surge worked, and that everything is just fine
now in Iraq.
The surge hasn't worked, and everything is not just fine in Iraq.
Yes, violence is down against both Iraqis and U.S. forces. 2007 was
still the deadliest year for American troops in Iraq. What we have
done is to arm and ally ourselves with the Sunni militias which we had
been fighting. Smart move. The Sunni militias in turn have
effectively liquidated Al Qaeda in Iraq, which was never more than 5%
of the insurgency.
Now you have both Sunni and Shiite militias which are heavily armed, a
totally corrupt and powerless central government, and zero political
progress toward any political settlement. As we are forced by
logistics to reduce our military presence this year, look for a
resurgence of the insurgency, movement to an all out Sunni/Shia civil
war, and increased American casualties.
But there is good reason why the economy looks to be the dominant
issue of the 2008 election. The results of the disasterous economic
policies of the Bush administration, as well as the feckless
mismanagement of monetary policy by Alan Greenspan, are finally coming
home to roost.
The wheels are finally coming off the economy, and it is hilarious to
see the Fed try to stabilize the situation by cutting interest rates
and pumping hundreds of billions of dollars of liquidity into the
financial system. It won't do any good.
Here are the fruits of managing the economy according to conservative
principles --
$100/barrel oil
Dollar at record lows against the Euro
Gold at record highs
Huge trade and budget deficits
Housing market in freefall
Record foreclosure rates
Hundreds of billions lost in hedge funds ( you know, those guys like
Mo Ron Charles, who think they are smart and understand how the
economy works?)
Increasing rates of poverty and income inequality
Record numbers of people with no health insurance
And so on and so forth. If we are in a full blown recession in
November, look for a Democratic landslide and a Democratic President.
If the economy is somehow still defying gravity and muddling along,
anything can happen, given Republican proclivities for voter
suppression and outright vote fraud.
William Coleman (ramashiva)
Paul Popinjay
>
> Hillary Clinton --
> The argument that she is
> unelectable is the purest nonsense.
>
Well you can BET ME!
That will be the day when America votes a woman into the White House. It ain't gonna
happen. About as likely as a Black guy, or a faggot.
ramashiva
spam]@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> "ramashiva" <ramash...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:fcade263-87c6-4b16-a70f-
>
> > Hillary Clinton --
> > The argument that she is
> > unelectable is the purest nonsense.
>
> Well you can BET ME!
If Hillary is nominated, will you lay me 3 to 1 odds again? I promise
to pay this time if I lose. No conditions, except these --
Hillary must be the Democratic nominee.
Hillary must be alive and still the Democratic nominee on election
day.
> That will be the day when America votes a woman into the White House. It ain't gonna
> happen. About as likely as a Black guy,
If Obama is the nominee, I will bet you on the same terms as above.
> or a faggot.
Does this refer to Edwards? I will make a bet on the same terms if
Edwards is the nominee.
William Coleman (ramashiva)
Paul Popinjay
> or a faggot.
-----------------------------------------------------------
First of all, you're just whistling in the wind. There's no way a democrat will win this
election, because that is not the "game plan". I think the game plan is to get another
phony republican into the White House who can finish the job of ruining America that Bush
brought along so nicely. The American people will not stand for a democrat to do the shit
that Bush has done. But they WILL stand for a republican to it. Witness the morons on
this newsgroup like Fl Turbo and Joe Long who STILL TO THIS DAY do not see what a disaster
Bush and the republican leadership is for our nation. Amazing that anyone can have their
head buried so deep in the sand.
I will save this post, Ramashiva, and consider laying you 3-1 on one or more scenarios.
But please give me some time to breath right now. I do not want to talk about politics.
I just got home from Vegas. And I already want to go back. Las Vegas is waiting.
-Paul Popinjay
jj_...@yahoo.com
Thanks a lot Bill Bradley. As if there wasn't enough total nonsense
on this newsgroup, now RGP's Lifetime Achievement Award winner for
nonsense is back and "better" than ever.
BillB
> Bill railed me today during a PokerStars tournament.
In which you came 69th of 4083 entrants. Good job giving yourself a
great shot at a nice payday.
Thanks for the political commentary. As usual, insightful and
informative.
bub
<rama...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Here are the fruits of managing the economy according to conservative
>principles --
>
>$100/barrel oil
>
>Dollar at record lows against the Euro
>
>Gold at record highs
>
>Huge trade and budget deficits
>
>Housing market in freefall
>
>Record foreclosure rates
and the president has control over these how??and should he have
control over this ???
>Record numbers of people with no health insurance
again, the guvments fault how???
welcome back with your impotent worthless post, lameass
jj_...@yahoo.com
"John Edwards -- Again, I really like the guy. Charismatic and
excellent public speaker. Of the three major candidates, Edwards
most closely reflects my views."
Charismatic and excellent public speaker, yes, but that is almost a
pre-requisite for a con-man. This ambulance chaser rails against
"special interests" when his main support is from labor unions and
trial lawyers. Confused yet? Edwards' 2008 plan is to present
himself as a champion of the middle class yet this world class
hypocrite who has already done incalcuable harm to the middle class
with his litigation against the medical community. Can you imagine who
this charlatan would appoint to the supreme court?
I try to respect the political views of others but at least please try
to be honest. If you were to say "I like John Edwards because I
believe in entitlements, class warfare, and suing everyone in sight",
then fine, he is your man.
I also like the slander of Ron Paul. Now that Kucinich is officially
out, Paul is the only candidate not owned by the Zionists. Before his
official support goes any further above 10%, let's start calling him
the candidate of the white supremecists and Neo-Nazis.
JJ
On Jan 5, 11:36 pm, "BillB" <bo...@shaw1.ca> wrote:
> "ramashiva" <ramash...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>
> Thanks for the political commentary. As usual, insightful and
> informative.
Boise
AHHH hahahahah you had me till here popinjay.
------
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
Boise
How many of there are you?.........in THIS thread?
.
The Virtual Haircut.
http://tinyurl.com/2lnl8o
_____________________________________________________________________
BillB
"BillB" <bo...@shaw1.ca> wrote in message
news:Fx%fj.17946$uV6.1576@pd7urf1no...
> Thanks for the political commentary. As usual, insightful and
> informative.
P.S. Let us know if the new computer build improves your multi-tasking
performance significantly. I didn't make it out to get my processor
today. I have everything else. I am torn between overclocking the hell
out of an E6750 with an eye toward upgrading later to the new 45nm
processors (both of which are compatible with my motherboard), or
spending $100 more now and going with the Q6600 and keeping it longer.
I suppose the quad core should work better for heavy
multi-tabling/multi-tasking, which is what I do most. I am really
intrigued by the power efficiency of the upcoming 45nm Yorkfield
offerings, but they'll probably be too expensive at launch.
risky biz
popinjay, you are a brazen scoundrel.
_______________________________________________________________________
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com
igotskillz com
The Arab soveriegn funds have started bailing out our manipulated economy.
What will continue to happen is they will buy down the value of the other
currencies against ours.
Yes, muslims will save the day for now.
In turn, we will protect them from the crazies over there.
Believe it or not, there are a lot of them there and the good muslims are
tired of it.
Oil was going to hit 100 a barrel someday and since republicans are
usually president you had a darn good chance of finding one in the white
house when it happened.
As Pauls stated, a dem is not part of the plan unless we were in worse
shape than we are now. Then they could be ms and mr Goodbar to the world
to patch things up.
The serge has worked. 2007 was a bad year but towards the end, deaths
dropped off. The serge didn't happen for about the first 1/2 of the year
but hey, use the stats from the time before the serge. THATS why we needed
the serge, but hey you are real extra good with numbers.
Romney is the next president, sorry.
If you ever bothered to read my predictions on world events here you'd
find my only incorrect assertion was that we would have popped iran
already.
Somehow, i think Iran is our puppet.
Nobody could be as retarded as whatever his name is unless it was on
purpose. The guy is like so 70's. We buy his oil and he says we are bad.
Oil is running out and as long as we can keep them down til we finish
developing replacements we wont have to worry about the nutjobs. They wont
have an economy anymore and they'll beg us for food.
It'll all be ok Bill.
If you want to make some cash, deal with someone you know, ME !!!
________________________________________________________________________
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
Ian Stuart
>
> P.S. Let us know if the new computer build improves your multi-tasking
> performance significantly. I didn't make it out to get my processor
> today. I have everything else. I am torn between overclocking the hell
> out of an E6750 with an eye toward upgrading later to the new 45nm
> processors (both of which are compatible with my motherboard), or
> spending $100 more now and going with the Q6600 and keeping it longer.
> I suppose the quad core should work better for heavy
> multi-tabling/multi-tasking, which is what I do most. I am really
> intrigued by the power efficiency of the upcoming 45nm Yorkfield
> offerings, but they'll probably be too expensive at launch.
Surely you don't need that kind of muscle for playing online poker? I can
run 10 tables on my aging relic of a ThinkPad T23 without any issues, well
other than my own mental capacity.
Paul Popinjay
news:art655x...@recgroups.com...
> ok Wilhelm....
>
>
> It'll all be ok Bill.
>
No, it's not ok. Neither you, nor Ramashiva, nor anyone else on this newsgroup is astute
enough to realize that America must be destroyed as we know it, making necessary mass
purges and liquidations of anyone attempting to resist.
-Paul Popinjay
BillB
"Ian Stuart" <spam...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
news:40u655x...@recgroups.com...
> On Jan 6 2008 8:53 AM, BillB wrote:
> Surely you don't need that kind of muscle for playing online poker?
> I can
> run 10 tables on my aging relic of a ThinkPad T23 without any
> issues, well
> other than my own mental capacity.
No, I don't really need it. It's just a hobby. I like fast computers.
It's a lot cheaper than liking fast cars.
risky biz
> ok Wilhelm....
>
> The Arab soveriegn funds have started bailing out our manipulated economy.
>
> What will continue to happen is they will buy down the value of the other
> currencies against ours.
>
> Yes, muslims will save the day for now.
>
> In turn, we will protect them from the crazies over there.
>
> Believe it or not, there are a lot of them there and the good muslims are
> tired of it.
>
> Oil was going to hit 100 a barrel someday and since republicans are
> usually president
Ignoring the fact that this last statement is completely detached from the
facts what exactly was the price of oil before the Republican shitheads
launched their crusade to nowhere? About $33 a barrel. From then to now
the same moron has been in the White House and it's about $100 a barrel. I
guess personal responsibility is for other people, not Republicans.
> you had a darn good chance of finding one in the white
> house when it happened.
>
> As Pauls stated, a dem is not part of the plan unless we were in worse
> shape than we are now. Then they could be ms and mr Goodbar to the world
> to patch things up.
>
> The serge has worked. 2007 was a bad year but towards the end, deaths
> dropped off. The serge didn't happen for about the first 1/2 of the year
> but hey, use the stats from the time before the serge. THATS why we needed
> the serge, but hey you are real extra good with numbers.
>
> Romney is the next president, sorry.
>
> If you ever bothered to read my predictions on world events here you'd
> find my only incorrect assertion was that we would have popped iran
> already.
>
> Somehow, i think Iran is our puppet.
You're barking up the wrong tree. The Republican Party is Al Qaeda's
puppet. Why do you think OBL always makes a point of showing up just
before important American elections? To make every effort to keep the
morons of America in the driver's seat.
> Nobody could be as retarded as whatever his name is unless it was on
> purpose. The guy is like so 70's. We buy his oil and he says we are bad.
>
> Oil is running out and as long as we can keep them down til we finish
> developing replacements we wont have to worry about the nutjobs. They wont
> have an economy anymore and they'll beg us for food.
As long as Asia is willing to finance our food production. The dumbshits
of America have a big letdown coming and they don't have a clue.
By the way, did you know that Saudi Arabia has been exporting surplus
wheat since the early 80's?
And, oh, yeah . . . S-U-R-G-E.
bub
<risk...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>From then to now
>the same moron has been in the White House and it's about $100 a barrel
please explain how the president controls the market price of oil?
thank you
Paul Popinjay
Ok, let me field this. I'm going to explain this, just as Ron Paul explained it in
yesterday's debate.
This asshole (Bush) has overseen record debt. Then the government prints gobs and gobs of
dollars to cover for some of this debt, thereby dilluting the value of all the remaining
dollars in circulation. Ron Paul was the only honest candidate to explain that. Of
course, all the others understand this concept also, but they're liars and phonies who
want to keep the populace ignorant about the true meaning of inflation. Essentially, the
value of oil has not risen to such a degree. It is the value of the U.S. dollar that has
drastically gone down in value.
As I have explained for years on this newsgroup, probably in vain, inflation is not rising
prices, rising prices is an effect of inflation. And this asshole, (Bush), has led the
way in steering this ship toward the rocks. To me it is absolutely amazing how there are
STILL TO THIS DAY people like you, Fl Turbo, and Joe Long, who have their heads buried so
deep that you still want to defend this DISASTEROUS republican administration and its
suicidal policies.
-Paul Popinjay
ChrisRobin
On Jan 7 2008 12:39 AM, bub wrote:
> On Sun, 06 Jan 2008 19:50:46 -0800, "risky biz"
> wrote:
>
> >From then to now
> >the same moron has been in the White House and it's about $100 a barrel
>
>
> please explain how the president controls the market price of oil?
Environmental policies that encourage oil consumption and discourage development
of alternative energy. Wars on foreign soil that limit global supply (and
consume massive amounts of petroleum). Promotion of globalization, which drives
up global demand. Fiscal policies (including corporate tax breaks) and unchecked
spending which lead the Fed to pump more money into circulation to service an
ever-increasing trade defecit (inflation). Energy policies spawned directly from
the oil industry (the "Energy Task Force"). Manipulating the SPR to artificially
control supply/demand.
You're welcome.
_______________________________________________________________
Watch Lists, Block Lists, Favorites - http://www.recpoker.com
jj_...@yahoo.com
Thank you for posting some sense for a change. Ron Paul was exactly
right in the debate, the price of a barrel of oil has remained
constant with it's value in gold. The value of the dollar has been
reduced rapidly due to the policies of the both the Bush
administration and the Federal Reserve under Greenspan/Bernake. These
criminals have already killed the American dream of owning a home for
millions of middle class Americans, now they are devaluing the
retirement savings Americans have worked their entire lives for. Any
candidate who will not address this fact does not deserve any
consideration for President. As of now, Ron Paul is the only
candidate to tell the bumpkins in this country the truth.
Unfortunately, this country is full of idiot evangelicals who will
support Huckabee or those who are enthralled in the "cult of
personality" of Obama. I watched the post debate on Fox this evening
and wanted to smash the TV when they interviewed some bumpkin who is
basing his vote on the candidates stanch on abortion. Regardless of
how one feels about abortion, how on earth can you base your vote for
President on this issue? Yet I bet at least 20% of the electorate
makes woud disqualify a candidate based on this non-issue.
What a country......sigh.
JJ
On Jan 6, 11:17 pm, "Paul Popinjay" <paulpopinjay[no-
spam]@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> "bub" <b...@plotus.com> wrote in messagenews:u2i3o3pdcke0c6omu...@4ax.com...
Paul Popinjay
news:1199692186$109...@recpoker.com...
>
>
> Environmental policies that encourage oil consumption and discourage development
> of alternative energy. Wars on foreign soil that limit global supply (and
> consume massive amounts of petroleum). Promotion of globalization, which drives
> up global demand. Fiscal policies (including corporate tax breaks) and unchecked
> spending which lead the Fed to pump more money into circulation to service an
> ever-increasing trade defecit (inflation). Energy policies spawned directly from
> the oil industry (the "Energy Task Force"). Manipulating the SPR to artificially
> control supply/demand.
>
> You're welcome.
>
If you had a dollar coin in your pocket in 1964, you could buy roughly three gallons of
gasoline with it If you still had that very same dollar coin in your pocket today, how
many gallons of gasoline could you buy with it?
If you answer the above quiz correctly and honestly, you'll have to agree with Paul
Popinjay that the price of gasoline has actually gone DOWN in the last 40 years, not up.
-Paul Popinjay
Paul Popinjay
news:aded0fea-4c38-4ff5...@e25g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> Mr Popinjay,
> Thank you for posting some sense for a change.
Excuse me? My posts always make sense. As an important casino executive I have a certain
standard to uphold and maintain. I don't fuck around.
-Paul Popinjay
Paul Popinjay
some bumpkin who is
> basing his vote on the candidates stanch on abortion. Regardless of
> how one feels about abortion, how on earth can you base your vote for
> President on this issue? Yet I bet at least 20% of the electorate
> makes woud disqualify a candidate based on this non-issue.
Btw, it's hardly a non-issue, and rightfully so. If there were Nazis in our country
rounding up and killing Jews, do you think that would qualify as a legitimate campaign
issue? There is a Holocaust going on in this country right under your very nose. 2
million innocent little defenseless human beings are being ripped apart and thrown in a
sink, each year, in the United States of America. Of course, Ron Paul is the ONLY
candidate who is truthfully in support of precious life and he has the record to prove it,
having stood up for the rights of the unborn since many on this newsgroup were themselves
unborns.
The question should not be "How could anyone consider a candidate's stance on abortion as
a legitimate factor to base one's vote on?" Instead, if you or anyone has a heart and
warm blood in their veins they should stedfastly REFUSE to vote for anyone who is not in
complete support of a total ban on abortion in this nation.
What's more important than ending the murder of 2 million little babies in America each
year?
-Paul Popinjay
BillB
"Paul Popinjay" <paulpopinjay[no-spam]@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:Gmkgj.34373$JD.1...@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net...
>> please explain how the president controls the market price of oil?
>>
>> thank you
>
>
> Ok, let me field this. I'm going to explain this, just as Ron Paul
> explained it in yesterday's debate.
>
> This asshole (Bush) has overseen record debt. Then the government
> prints gobs and gobs of dollars to cover for some of this debt,
> thereby dilluting the value of all the remaining dollars in
> circulation. Ron Paul was the only honest candidate to explain
> that. Of course, all the others understand this concept also, but
> they're liars and phonies who want to keep the populace ignorant
> about the true meaning of inflation. Essentially, the value of oil
> has not risen to such a degree. It is the value of the U.S. dollar
> that has drastically gone down in value.
Ron Paul doesn't know what he's talking about. His theory doesn't
explain the rise in the price of oil relative to other goods,
services, and commodities. In other words, if that were the cause,
*everything* would have quadrupled in price, not just oil. The sudden
rise in the relative price of oil is a function of increasing demand
and tapped out supplies, and is exacerbated by speculation in the oil
markets caused by the Bush administration's Middle East
destabilization policies.
Paul Popinjay
>
>
> Ron Paul doesn't know what he's talking about. His theory doesn't explain the rise in
> the price of oil relative to other goods, services, and commodities. In other words, if
> that were the cause, *everything* would have quadrupled in price, not just oil.
I paid almost $2 for a fucking candy bar yesterday, so what the fuck are YOU talking
about? Of course, you rank as one of the biggest phonies in RGP history, Bill. That's
why you posted your ignorant comment to THIS, but you failed to address my claim in this
same thread that the price of gasoline in America has actually gone DOWN in the last 40
years. I am right, and Ron Paul is right, and you are wrong. I don't know if you know it
or not, or whether you are just pulling my chain. But I made a New Years Resolution to be
nice to people on RGP in 2008, so I won't call you a fucking idiot. Please help me to
keep my New Years Resolution by not posting anything that's really really stupid in 2008.
It annoys the fuck out of me.
-Paul Popinjay
da pickle
> Please help me to keep my New Years Resolution by not posting anything
> that's really really stupid in 2008. It annoys the fuck out of me.
Too late.
BillB
Oil has gone from around $26/bbl in 2002 to around $100/bbl in 2008.
Have other goods and services across the board seen a commensurate
increase? No? Then devaluation of the dollar is not the primary cause.
This should be obvious even to someone with a 100 IQ.
ChrisRobin
Is this a trick question?
_______________________________________________________________
Block Lists, Favorites, and more - http://www.recpoker.com
Paul Popinjay
>
>
> Is this a trick question?
>
No it's not a trick question. And I see nobody bothered to answer it today while I was
shopping and running errands. That means one of two things. Either no one reads my posts
anymore, or people are just as confused as fuck about inflation and could not answer it.
I tend to think my posts are still being read.
Look. In 1964, gasoline was 30 cents a gallon. You could buy three gallons with the
dollar coin in your pocket. If you still had that same dollar coin in your pocket today,
2008, you could buy FIVE gallons of gasoline with it. So, the price of gasoline has gone
DOWN in the last 40 years, not up. And it is amazing to me that I have to spell this out
for people on this newsgroup. I see no one on this group who really grasps this as I do.
The people here on the Left have already been brainwashed by the college Keynesians. And
the people on the Right, I just don't know what to say. Several here on the Right still
jump to the defense of Bush. So, I guess I can conclude that they're just stupid. But I
don't want to say that, because it sounds like I am being rude and I am trying to keep my
New Years Resolution of trying to be nice to the people on RGP. And lose 20 pounds.
-Paul Popinjay
Paul Popinjay
>
>
> Oil has gone from around $26/bbl in 2002 to around $100/bbl in 2008. Have other goods
> and services across the board seen a commensurate increase? No? Then devaluation of the
> dollar is not the primary cause. This should be obvious even to someone with a 100 IQ.
How much was oil in 1964? I see you still have avoided my other post that I referred to.
Nothing's changed. You were a total phony in 2007, and you're a total phony in 2008. The
only difference is that I am not going to bring that up.
-Paul Popinjay
BillB
> Look. In 1964, gasoline was 30 cents a gallon. You could buy three
> gallons with the dollar coin in your pocket. If you still had that
> same dollar coin in your pocket today, 2008, you could buy FIVE
> gallons of gasoline with it. So, the price of gasoline has gone
> DOWN in the last 40 years, not up. And it is amazing to me that I
> have to spell this out for people on this newsgroup. I see no one
> on this group who really grasps this as I do.
According to the inflation calculators I just checked, a 1964 dollar
would be worth about $6.50 today. Where can you buy five gallons of
gas for $6.50?
According to the inflation adjusted gas prices chart I just looked at,
a gallon of gas in 1964 would cost $2.00 in 2007 dollars. Where can
you buy gas today for $2 a gallon?
I think if you do your homework you'll find that, adjusted for
inflation, the most expensive sustained average gas prices in the last
80 years was in 1981 where it topped out at around $3.15 in 2007
dollars. That high was topped briefly in May of 2007.
Welchy the Welcher
On Jan 7 2008 6:45 PM, BillB wrote:
> "Paul Popinjay" wrote in message
> news:uXAgj.37041$Pv2....@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net...
>
> > Look. In 1964, gasoline was 30 cents a gallon. You could buy three
> > gallons with the dollar coin in your pocket. If you still had that
> > same dollar coin in your pocket today, 2008, you could buy FIVE
> > gallons of gasoline with it. So, the price of gasoline has gone
> > DOWN in the last 40 years, not up. And it is amazing to me that I
> > have to spell this out for people on this newsgroup. I see no one
> > on this group who really grasps this as I do.
>
>
> According to the inflation calculators I just checked, a 1964 dollar
> would be worth about $6.50 today. Where can you buy five gallons of
> gas for $6.50?
> According to the inflation adjusted gas prices chart I just looked at,
> a gallon of gas in 1964 would cost $2.00 in 2007 dollars. Where can
> you buy gas today for $2 a gallon?
>
He said using the dollar coin in his pocket, not a dollar bill. The dollar coin
in his pocket would have been a *silver* dollar, and with silver at over $15 an
ounce, that silver dollar would be worth a lot more than $6.50 today.
_______________________________________________________________
New Feature: Mark All As Read! - http://www.recpoker.com
Paul Popinjay
>
>
> According to the inflation calculators I just checked, a 1964 dollar would be worth
> about $6.50 today. Where can you buy five gallons of gas for $6.50?
> According to the inflation adjusted gas prices chart I just looked at, a gallon of gas
> in 1964 would cost $2.00 in 2007 dollars. Where can you buy gas today for $2 a gallon?
>
> I think if you do your homework you'll find that, adjusted for inflation, the most
> expensive sustained average gas prices in the last 80 years was in 1981 where it topped
> out at around $3.15 in 2007 dollars. That high was topped briefly in May of 2007.
>
I'll stand by my statements. Go ahead and play your little head games if you want. If
you had that same dollar coin in your pocket that you had in your pocket in 1964, the one
you could buy three gallons of gasoline with back then, you could now buy FIVE gallons of
gasoline with it. I am absolutely correct. The price of gasoline has gone DOWN in the
last 40 years, not up. You can go ahead and play all the phony little childish head games
you want to, Bill. I refuse to call you a moron. I refuse to break my New Years
Resolution. It must be awful important to you to get me off my New Years Resolution
because I can see you're trying your best to annoy the fuck out of me.
-Paul Popinjay
Paul Popinjay
news:1199762236$109...@recpoker.com...
>
> He said using the dollar coin in his pocket, not a dollar bill. The dollar coin
> in his pocket would have been a *silver* dollar, and with silver at over $15 an
> ounce, that silver dollar would be worth a lot more than $6.50 today.
>
Holy shit! It's WELCHY! Happy New Years and best wishes to Welchy in 2008! I am so
fucking glad to see you. I mean that. I miss you. I do.
Did you know that Wilhelm posted here a few days ago? Really. It was the first post of
his he has honored us with in months and months! It's been tough.
Welchy, in case you missed my thread about my New Years Resolution, I have made a two-part
committment for 2008. Number 1, I will try to be nice to people on RGP. And Number 2, I
will lose 20 pounds. Believe me, losing the 20 pounds is going to be a snap.
-Paul Popinjay
PS: Btw, don't think for a moment you are telling BillB anything. I promise you he knew
exactly what you just said and that he was merely playing dumb for some reason known only
to him. He enjoys annoying the fuck out of me. But it's not going to work. Nice, in
2008!
bub
keep this shit up and i'll tell your mom next time i'm out with her.
btw, she's told me a few things about you.
but again you and i both know the president can't set the price of
oil,thats done by the markets
Paul Popinjay
> hey mister, show me where i said i support bush without reservation
>
> keep this shit up and i'll tell your mom next time i'm out with her.
>
> btw, she's told me a few things about you.
>
> but again you and i both know the president can't set the price of
> oil,thats done by the markets
>
Bub, first of all, calm down. I am not trying to bust your balls. Please consider the
things I have stated, again. Re-consider what I have stated. There may be a message in
this somewhere for you. I am not clowning around. Really, I am not clowning around.
Read what I have said about gasoline in terms of the 1964 dollar. I'm not kidding. The
president IS setting the price of oil. He's setting the price of everything. He's
setting the price of everything HIGH! Because the dollar is falling EXACTLY because of
him. That's not to say that the last several presidents have not done the same thing
regarding debt and printing fiat money. But Bush takes the fucking cake.
-Paul Popinjay
BillB
> He said using the dollar coin in his pocket, not a dollar bill. The
> dollar coin
> in his pocket would have been a *silver* dollar, and with silver at
> over $15 an
> ounce, that silver dollar would be worth a lot more than $6.50
> today.
Oh, is that what he's confused about? Yes, the silver would be worth
about $11 today (still not 5 gallons of gas, mind you, so I don't know
where he's getting that number). But all that tells you is that the
commodity silver has appreciated slightly faster than the commodity
gas. It doesn't tell us anything about relative gas prices over time
adjusted for inflation. We don't measure the relative price of gas
against any one commodity (such as silver) to determine if the price
has risen or fallen. We measure it against a market basket of goods.
You have to give up more items from your basket to get a gallon of gas
today than you would have in 1964, thus the price has increased.
BillB
> but again you and i both know the president can't set the price of
> oil,thats done by the markets
Are you really so naive that you don't think starting a war in the
Middle East creates upward pressure on the price of oil?
Paul Popinjay
>
>
> Oh, is that what he's confused about? Yes, the silver would be worth about $11 today
> (still not 5 gallons of gas, mind you, so I don't know where he's getting that number).
Don't answer him, Welchy. Please don't play his games with him. Ignore him. Maybe he'll
go away.
-Paul Popinjay
bub
>Are you really so naive that you don't think starting a war in the
>Middle East creates upward pressure on the price of oil?
damn that bush is a smart one. able to adjust prices of goods he
wants, able to make countries like china and india increase their use
of oil. now he needs to start a war with russia since they are a huge
exporter of oil ..and he got the congress to halt drilling in alaska
and the gulf to keep supplies down.
damn, i'm so naive i keep forgetting how smart that bush guy is. i
always forget he was able to blow up buildings to start this war to
raise oil prices and still keep that conspiracy a secret
thanks einstein
BillB
>> Oh, is that what he's confused about? Yes, the silver would be
>> worth about $11 today (still not 5 gallons of gas, mind you, so I
>> don't know where he's getting that number).
>
>
> Don't answer him, Welchy. Please don't play his games with him.
> Ignore him. Maybe he'll go away.
Go away?? Look at the title of this thread mf.
*You* are the one who is very very close to being banned from this
thread.
BillB
I'll take that as a yes??
bub
>I'll take that as a yes??
Paul Popinjay
>
>
> Go away?? Look at the title of this thread mf.
>
> *You* are the one who is very very close to being banned from this thread.
Oh? So you're getting a little assertive now? That just goes to show you. It's human
nature. People take kindness for weakness. Now that I am trying to be nice in 2008,
people are going for my jugular. This is going to be a long year.
-Paul Popinjay
bub
<paulpopinjay[no-spam]@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>Bub, first of all, calm down. I am not trying to bust your balls.
don't worry, i won't tell everyone the stories your mom has shared
with me
things are going real well with her and me right now.
do you mind if i call you son?
BillB
> On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 04:37:20 GMT, "BillB" <bo...@shaw1.ca> wrote:
>
>>I'll take that as a yes??
>
>
> www.rif.org
Yes it is, so why don't you just give me a straight answer to my
question?
Do you accept that Bush starting a major war in the country with the
world's second largest conventional oil reserves, and threatening war
against the country with the third largest, and sabre rattling against
the country with the sixth largest, is going to drive up the price of
oil? Yes or no. Stop tap dancing. You've been running around for days
like an idiot saying Bush has nothing to do the price of oil. You
can't possibly be that stupid.
bub
no more than the reasons i stated which you tried to ignore with your
inane prattle, smitty.
damn that bush is a smart one able to pull all that off
risky biz
> On Sun, 06 Jan 2008 19:50:46 -0800, "risky biz"
> <risk...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> >From then to now
> >the same moron has been in the White House and it's about $100 a barrel
>
>
> please explain how the president controls the market price of oil?
>
> thank you
By lavishly destabilizing the region where most of it is produced.
You're welcome, bubba.
-----
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
risky biz
All commodities have increased greatly in price during the Bush
administartion, not just oil. Oil has increased more than most because
Republican asshole has been doing everything he can think of to
destabilize the Middle East oil region.
Value added goods and services are subject to offsetting factors. Please
don't reveal yourself to be a complete nincompoop by asking what.
risky biz
> hey mister, show me where i said i support bush without reservation
>
> keep this shit up and i'll tell your mom next time i'm out with her.
>
> btw, she's told me a few things about you.
>
> but again you and i both know the president can't set the price of
> oil,thats done by the markets
Yeah, Wilbur- just like Halliburton's contracts in Iraq.
-----
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com
risky biz
> "ChrisRobin" <4308...@recpoker.com> wrote in message
> news:1199747096$109...@recpoker.com...
> >
>
> >
> > Is this a trick question?
> >
>
>
> No it's not a trick question. And I see nobody bothered to answer it today
while I was
> shopping and running errands. That means one of two things. Either no one
reads my posts
> anymore, or people are just as confused as fuck about inflation and could
not answer it.
> I tend to think my posts are still being read.
>
> Look. In 1964, gasoline was 30 cents a gallon. You could buy three gallons
with the
> dollar coin in your pocket. If you still had that same dollar coin in your
pocket today,
> 2008, you could buy FIVE gallons of gasoline with it.
A dollar buys about a third of a gallon of gasoline today, popinjay,
unless you're talking about a "dollar" gold coin, which you didn't make
clear.
> So, the price of gasoline has gone
> DOWN in the last 40 years, not up. And it is amazing to me that I have to
spell this out
> for people on this newsgroup. I see no one on this group who really grasps
this as I do.
> The people here on the Left have already been brainwashed by the college
Keynesians. And
> the people on the Right, I just don't know what to say. Several here on the
Right still
> jump to the defense of Bush. So, I guess I can conclude that they're just
stupid. But I
> don't want to say that, because it sounds like I am being rude and I am
trying to keep my
> New Years Resolution of trying to be nice to the people on RGP. And lose 20
pounds.
>
> -Paul Popinjay
---
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com
risky biz
You're blowing smoke rings out of your ass there. Ramashiva, the
moderator, isn't nearly as narrowminded as you and popinjay posts most of
the really insightful poker content here.
_____________________________________________________________________
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
Paul Popinjay
news:m6ob55x...@recgroups.com...
>
> A dollar buys about a third of a gallon of gasoline today, popinjay,
> unless you're talking about a "dollar" gold coin, which you didn't make
> clear.
>
Perhaps you ought to cut and paste exactly what I said, so you won't end up "accidentally"
skewing the fuck out of it. And I was perfectly clear. I said that if you had a dollar
coin in your pocket in 1964, you could buy three gallons of gasoline with it. That is
true statement number one. Then I said, if you had that same dollar coin still in your
pocket today, you could buy five gallons of gasoline with it. True statement number two.
What the fuck is nebulous about THAT? The price of gasoline has obviously gone down, not
up. Please don't try to antagonize me. I committed to being nice in 2008, and I intend
to keep that committment no matter how annoying I might find you.
Oh, and btw, I don't think the United States issued any gold dollars in 1964. HA! I'm
rolling on the floor laughing my ass off, and not insulting anyone.
-Paul Popinjay
WuzYoungOnceToo
>
> > please explain how the president controls the market price of oil?
> >
> > thank you
>
> By lavishly destabilizing the region where most of it is produced.
>
> You're welcome, bubba.
I keep hearing abou this recent "destabilizing" of the Middle East, but
going over the region's modern history I'm unable to find a period of
relative stability there. Nearly non-stop antagonism towards Israel by
its neighbors, wars between Iraq & Iran, between Iraq and Kuwait/an
international coalition, acts of terrorism, the threat of nuclear exchange
between nearby India and Pakistan, about a quarter century of conflict in
Afghanistan, civil wars in Lebanon, Algeria, Yemen and Sudan, etc. Why
wasn't the price of oil through the roof all along? I wonder if there
could be other forces at work.....
______________________________________________________________________
James L. Hankins
"WuzYoungOnceToo" <WuzYoun...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:39jc55x...@recgroups.com...
> On Jan 8 2008 1:55 AM, risky biz wrote:
>>
>> > please explain how the president controls the market price of oil?
>> >
>> > thank you
>>
>> By lavishly destabilizing the region where most of it is produced.
>>
>> You're welcome, bubba.
>
> I keep hearing abou this recent "destabilizing" of the Middle East, but
> going over the region's modern history I'm unable to find a period of
> relative stability there. Nearly non-stop antagonism towards Israel by
> its neighbors, wars between Iraq & Iran, between Iraq and Kuwait/an
> international coalition, acts of terrorism, the threat of nuclear exchange
> between nearby India and Pakistan, about a quarter century of conflict in
> Afghanistan, civil wars in Lebanon, Algeria, Yemen and Sudan, etc. Why
> wasn't the price of oil through the roof all along? I wonder if there
> could be other forces at work.....
Which makes me wonder if the U.S. pulling out of Iraq would really make any
noticeable difference in the stability of the region. Iraq would be lawless
for a while, but political and military nature fills those vacuums very
quickly.
Joe Long seems to think such destabilization would be disastrous not only to
the U.S. but to the world.
Do you think destabilization of the region is a valid reason that counsels
against a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq?
WuzYoungOnceToo
>
> Which makes me wonder if the U.S. pulling out of Iraq would really make any
> noticeable difference in the stability of the region. Iraq would be lawless
> for a while, but political and military nature fills those vacuums very
> quickly.
I wouldn't argue with that.
> Joe Long seems to think such destabilization would be disastrous not only to
> the U.S. but to the world.
I don't know about "disasterous" for either the U.S. or the world as a
whole (though that's certainly a possibilty), but it would likely suck for
the Iraqis even more than the current situation.
> Do you think destabilization of the region is a valid reason that counsels
> against a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq?
Well, given my previous post I think my answer pretty much has to be "no".
But I do think we have at least some moral obligation to see it through,
assuming progress continues to be made (and hopefully at a faster pace.)
A Man Beaten by Jacks
>> www.rif.org
You aren't giving him the credit he's earned.
He most certainly IS that stupid, and more.
risky biz
What difference does it make if it was gold or silver you were referring
to- they're both precious metals and a dollar's worth in 1964 dollars is
apparently your point. But how is anyone supposed to be sure you're not
referring to a 1964 dollar's worth of copper coin, otherwise known as
pennys- similar to how a "dollar coin" is otherwise, and more precisely,
known as a silver dollar?
bub
<nob...@fool.foo> wrote:
>You aren't giving him the credit he's earned.
>
>He most certainly IS that stupid, and more.
zing ..ouch.. wow... golly.. eeek
what a scathing reply
but thanks for igoring the points, douchebag
Paul Popinjay
>
> What difference does it make if it was gold or silver you were referring
> to-
Well, for one thing, I like to be accurate. And it looks like you could care less about
accuracy, you just like to talk. That's one difference.
My exact words were "a dollar coin in your pocket". I said this more than once. And now
you want to throw copper into the mix? Where the fuck do you get off? Copper is not
money. Pennies were never supposed to be money. Neither were nickels.
-Paul Popinjay