ridin' the storm out
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
What Are the Gobshites Saying These Days?
By Charles P. Pierce
at 1:17PM
Welcome back to the blog's weekly survey of Our National Dialogue, which is, of course, what Handel would have sounded like if he'd composed "The Messiah" to be sung primarily by cormorants.
Before we get to what the gobshites said on our electric television machines, a brief shout-out to some gobshites of the printed word. First, to Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, who, it is said, is hard at work promoting a new doorstop he's constructed wherein he backs his entire career up over his own feet because, frankly, he doesn't care much about his day job any more. And then there's the mysteriously unincarcerated John Yoo, waxing wroth at the president's new immigration policy because, and I am not making this up, "President Obama’s claim that he can refuse to deport 800,000 aliens here in the country illegally illustrates the unprecedented stretching of the Constitution and the rule of law.” I tried to reach Irony for comment on both of these items, but she had downed 25 Xanax with a fifth of Stoly and was being rushed to the ER. And some people will tell you that print is dead.
It was a bad day for Willard Romney on Face The Nation, and he was unquestionably Sunday's chewiest cluster of fk. Smoke was seen coming from every opening in his head, and there was a nasty sound of grinding gears, and small springs were seen flying from his head. Former McKinley State Department correspondent Bob Schieffer doggedly kept trying to get him to cough up an answer as to whether or not he would repeal the president's executive order regarding young undocumented immigrants. No answer was forthcoming. Hell, no identifiable human speech was forthcoming. First, he said...
"Well, let's step back and — and look at the issue. I mean, first of all, we have to secure the border. We need to have an employment verification system to make sure that those that are working here in this country are here legally and then with regards to these kids who were brought in by their parents through no fault of their own, there needs to be a long-term solution so they know what their status is. This is something Congress has been working on, and I thought we are about to see some proposals brought forward by Senator Marco Rubio and by Democrat senators, but the President jumped in and said I'm going to take this action. He called it a stopgap measure. I — I don't know why he feels stopgap measures are the right way to go and he —
Then, he elaborated...
"Well, as-- as you know, he was — he was President for the last three and a half years, did nothing on immigration. Two years, he had a Democrats' House in Senate, did nothing of permanent or — or long-term basis. What I would do is I'd make sure that by coming into office I would work with Congress to put in place a long-term solution for the-- for the children of those that — that have come here illegally —
Then, he explained...
"Well, it would be overtaken by events, if you will, by virtue of my putting in place a long-term solution with — with legislation which creates law that relates to these individuals, such that they know what their — their stat — setting is going to be —
And, in conclusion...
"We'll — we'll look at that — we'll look at that setting as we — as we reach that. But my anticipation is, I'd come into office and say we need to get this done on a long-term basis, not this kind of a stopgap measure. What — what the President did, he — he should have worked on this years ago. If he felt seriously about this, he should have taken action when he had a Democrat House and Senate, but he didn't. He saves these sort of things until four and a half months before the general election.
Then, both Strunk and White rose from their graves and dragged him off to Hell for crimes against the language. Also, Willard? Using "Democrat" as an adjective makes you sound unbelievably stupid. Pass it on.
(Also, Schieffer mentioned something that I had missed: And Bill Kristol writing in The Weekly Standard this week, says, "We are reaching the time of consequence in our dealing with Iran on nuclear weapons." He says it is time for the President to go to the Congress and say, "I want you to authorize me to be able to use military force, if that becomes necessary. And he says if the President is not willing to do that, then the Congress should do it — themselves. Honest to Christ, Bill Kristol belongs in a fking cage. How do you eat with that much blood on your hands?)
Along came the panel, featuring Rich (Sparkle Pants) Lowry, who plainly hadn't been watching the program in the Green Room.
"I expect, obviously, Romney has not stuck on an answer on this yet. I — I suspect he'll have to say he will repeal this executive action but he'll endorse basically the Rubio plan which does it legislatively.
Sooner or later, Willard will do something completely unprincipled. Good bet, Sparkle Pants. And then, of course, there was some evidence that Rich has not been paying attention for some time now.
"I do think there's a danger here of this move by the President seeming overly political, just like his move on gay marriage, because he is on the record in detail saying he does not possess these powers as President of the United States, and all of a sudden, his view of that apparently changed because he has to win Colorado.
I am typing very... slowly... now. What the president did on immigration was very similar, not to his public endorsement of marriage equality, but to his order to the Justice Department not to enforce the Defense Of Marriage Act. So, when he said he didn't have the power to decide the question of marriage equality in the states, he was speaking the truth. He doesn't, and he isn't pretending to have it. He's just getting the federal government out of the question. No view of his "changed." And God knows, an incumbent president doing things that might help him stay president is just goddamned unprecedented in American politics. Why don't they just say "uppity" and get it over with?
Drifting a few feet above the rest of the panel, on a cloud made up of sweet memories and old chardonnay, Peggy Noonan, the Magic Dolphin Lady, spun her usual witchcraft, advising Willard Romney to be even less coherent than he has been. She's the Sheherazade of the 2-for-1 Happy Hour.
"He's got to go meaningful and graspable. I agree with you, so that people understand what it is, maybe not specifically, but in general, he wants to do, what his priorities are. There is a tendency when you are running for office to want to do constant, quick, bright, applause lines, and there's been a lot of that going on. But a series of applause lines is not a serious statement about this is the trouble we're in, and this is the direction we want to go in.
I'm begging you, Willard, take this advice. Be more... graspable.
Moving along to This Week With George Polysyllables, we find Tim Pawlenty, last seen fleeing the presidential race in sheer terror at the prospect of running against Michele Bachmann, and now working vigorously in the vineyards of the Romney campaign — no, really, it has actual vineyards, and I've seen them ‚ where the finest grapes are stomped into the purest vintage bullshit, and Tim has the purple feet to prove it.
"iVANDEN HEUVEL: Has he saved the auto industry in Mitt Romney's state? Has he?
WILL: We have...
PAWLENTY: Has he saved the auto industry?
(CROSSTALK)
PAWLENTY: That would have been saved under Governor Romney.
Good dog, Tim. Now roll over and play dead because you're not going to be VP. And thank god for Austan Goolsbee, who later made sure that America knew Pawlenty was an ignoramus.
"PAWLENTY: Austan, he had a Democrat Congress.
GOOLSBEE: He had a Democratic Congress...
And Matthew Dowd continued his career-long search for the very essence of uselessness.
"I want to go back to those focus groups we saw, because I think this is what the fundamental problem I think with both political parties in this country and the leadership on both sides of the aisle in this, is there seems to be an inherent incapability to tell the American public the truth, to tell the American public what's ahead for us, to tell the American public that we can no longer do certain things that we have to do, to tell the American public that we have to have a shared sense of sacrifice, that we can no longer have the state of government that we had and we can no longer have the tax policies that we have.
Yes, out abroad in the land, I sense a great hungering to be told we have to screw up our economy as badly as Great Britain and Ireland have screwed up theirs. Good grief.
By comparison, the gobshitery was at something of a minimum on Dancin' Dave's Disco Dance Party, where John McCain made the latest in a series of pathetic stabs for his old reputation as a "maverick," even though the presence of journalistic potato-blight Mark Halperin did offer some promise, especially on a panel with the exceptionally irrelevant Harold Ford, Jr. (D-Green Room). Here's Mark, being banal and making sure his phone calls will be returned no matter what happens in November.
"You know, it's strange, as you say, it's unusual to have both your parents. But I know he doesn't consider himself a politician. He's one term in office in Massachusetts. Thinks of himself as a business person. For those of us who spend a lot of time thinking about how are the president and Mitt Romney similar, how are they different? I think they're both pretty detached from politics.
Romney has been nothing but a politician since the moment he closed down the Olympics. The guy's been running for president for seven goddamn years. I guarantee you that the president is not "pretty detached from politics," either. At your feet or at your throat, I guess.
Read more: http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/mitt-romney-immigration-9833953#ixzz1yAypiHKn
The Fiscal Legacy of George W. Bush
By BRUCE BARTLETT
June 12, 2012, 6:00 am
Bruce Bartlett held senior policy roles in the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations and served on the staffs of Representatives Jack Kemp and Ron Paul. He is the author of “The Benefit and the Burden: Tax Reform – Why We Need It and What It Will Take.”
Republicans assert that Barack Obama assumed sole responsibility for the budget on Jan. 20, 2009. From that date, all increases in the debt or deficit are his responsibility and no one else’s, they say.
This is, of course, nonsense – and the American people know it. As I documented in a previous post, even today 43 percent of them hold George W. Bush responsible for the current budget deficit versus only 14 percent who blame Mr. Obama.
The American people are right; Mr. Bush is more responsible, as a new report from the Congressional Budget Office documents.
In January 2001, the office projected that the federal government would run a total budget surplus of $3.5 trillion through 2008 if policy was unchanged and the economy continued according to forecast. In fact, there was a deficit of $5.5 trillion.
The projected surplus was primarily the result of two factors. First was a big tax increase in 1993 that every Republican in Congress voted against, saying that it would tank the economy. This belief was wrong. The economy boomed in 1994, growing 4.1 percent that year and strongly throughout the Clinton administration.
The second major contributor to budget surpluses that emerged in 1998 was tough budget controls that were part of the 1990 and 1993 budget deals. The main one was a requirement that spending could not be increased or taxes cut unless offset by spending cuts or tax increases. This was known as Paygo, for pay as you go.
During the 2000 campaign, Mr. Bush warned that budget surpluses were dangerous because Congress might spend them, even though Paygo rules prevented this from happening. His Feb. 28, 2001, budget message reiterated this point and asserted that future surpluses were likely to be even larger than projected due principally to anticipated strong revenue growth.
This was the primary justification for a big tax cut. Subsequently, as it became clear that the economy was slowing – a recession began in March 2001 – that became a further justification.
The 2001 tax cut did nothing to stimulate the economy, yet Republicans pushed for additional tax cuts in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2006 and 2008. The economy continued to languish even as the Treasury hemorrhaged revenue, which fell to 17.5 percent of the gross domestic product in 2008 from 20.6 percent in 2000. Republicans abolished Paygo in 2002, and spending rose to 20.7 percent of G.D.P. in 2008 from 18.2 percent in 2001.
According to the C.B.O., by the end of the Bush administration, legislated tax cuts reduced revenues and increased the national debt by $1.6 trillion. Slower-than-expected growth further reduced revenues by $1.4 trillion.
However, the Bush tax cuts continued through 2010, well into the Obama administration. These reduced revenues by another $369 billion, adding that much to the debt. Legislated tax cuts enacted by President Obama and Democrats in Congress reduced revenues by an additional $407 billion in 2009 and 2010. Slower growth reduced revenues by a further $1.3 trillion. Contrary to Republican assertions, there were no additional revenues from legislated tax increases.
In late 2010, Mr. Obama agreed to extend all the Bush tax cuts for another two years. In 2011, this reduced revenues by $105 billion.
On the spending side, legislated increases during the Bush administration added $2.4 trillion to deficits and the debt through 2008. This includes $121 billion for Medicare Part D, a new entitlement program enacted by Republicans in 2003.
Economic factors added almost nothing to increased spending – just $27 billion in total. This is mainly because interest rates were much lower than C.B.O. had anticipated, leading to lower spending for interest on the debt.
After 2008, it becomes harder to separate spending that was initiated under Mr. Bush from that under Mr. Obama. We do know that spending for Part D has risen rapidly – Republicans phased in the program to disguise its budgetary cost – adding $150 billion to the debt during 2009-11.
According to a recent report from the Center for Strategic and International Studies, the unfunded wars in Iraq and Afghanistan increased the debt by $795 billion through the end of fiscal 2008. The continuation of these wars by Mr. Obama added another $488 billion through the end of 2011.
Putting all the numbers in the C.B.O. report together, we see that continuation of tax and budget policies and economic conditions in place at the end of the Clinton administration would have led to a cumulative budget surplus of $5.6 trillion through 2011 – enough to pay off the $5.6 trillion national debt at the end of 2000.
Tax cuts and slower-than-expected growth reduced revenues by $6.1 trillion and spending was $5.6 trillion higher, a turnaround of $11.7 trillion. Of this total, the C.B.O. attributes 72 percent to legislated tax cuts and spending increases, 27 percent to economic and technical factors. Of the latter, 56 percent occurred from 2009 to 2011.
Republicans would have us believe that somehow we could have avoided the recession and balanced the budget since 2009 if only they had been in charge. This would be a neat trick considering that the recession began in December 2007, according to the National Bureau of Economic Research.
They would also have us believe that all of the increase in debt resulted solely from higher spending, nothing from lower revenues caused by tax cuts. And they continually imply that one of the least popular spending increases of recent years, the Troubled Asset Relief Program, was an Obama administration program, when in fact it was a Bush administration initiative proposed by the Treasury Department that was signed into law by Mr. Bush on Oct. 3, 2008.
Lastly, Republicans continue to insist that tax cuts are highly stimulative, often saying that they add nothing to the debt, when this is obviously ridiculous.
Conversely, they are adamant that tax increases must not be part of any deficit-reduction package because they never reduce deficits and instead are spent. This is also ridiculous, as the experience of the Clinton administration clearly shows. The new C.B.O. data confirm these facts.
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/12/the-fiscal-legacy-of-george-w-bush/
stupid beyond belief
Obama Derangement Syndrome
insanity, hatred, and lies
if stupidity was a TOS violation on IHUB there would be very few posters left
Five myths of parenting!
Tom Toles
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/tom-toles/post/five-myths-of-parenting/2012/06/15/gJQAq0d3eV_blog.html
Father knows best. That’s number six.
In the spirit of Father’s Day, some thoughts on parenting. I actually don’t like the “five myths” format, because if you look at the “myths” as they are presented, they are usually straw men that nobody actually believes, and then those are “debunked.” It’s setting up your own large targets at close range then hitting them. I invite you to cast your skeptical eye at mine.
1) “Parenting is the most unselfish thing you will ever do.” This is no straw man. It’s widely asserted and almost universally believed by parents. It’s total hokum. Parenting is one of the MOST selfish things people ever do. People have kids as an extension of themselves, and view the exchange of love, and their kids’ accomplishments as total reflections on themselves and they derive immense satisfaction from it all. This is not the definition of unselfish. Parenting can be the HARDEST thing you will ever do, but that’s a different thing altogether.
2) “We want to have a baby.” This is not really a myth, but I want to take issue with it anyway. You don’t have a “baby.” You have a “person.” “Baby” is a pretty transient phase in the process of raising an “adult.” You don’t “have” a baby, because the baby doesn’t stick around.
3) “Above all, kids need unconditional love.” This is not a myth at all. This is absolutely true. It’s only a myth in the sense that the temptation to put performance conditions on that love is nearly universally succumbed to.
4) “Love, discipline and a stable, predictable home are the keys to good parenting.” This is also true, except it’s also wrong. It’s wrong in the sense of the control it implies. If you have more than one kid, you discover that they are who they are, not who you shape them to be. The same parenting techniques don’t have anything like the same outcomes on different kids, so stop congratulating yourself on how good you are at parenting. I’d rephrase the formula as “Just don’t quit on them. Ever.”
5) “They never call, they never write.” This is also true. Congratulations, you’ve raised an adult.
like clockwork, every time 'westpacific' shows up with his 'world is ending doom and gloom' the market rallies and jams the shorts in the ying yang... the guy is brilliant, LOL
Republicans have Plotted Treason Now
Republicans have Plotted Treason Now
so you are also a fan of Hitler?
congratulations... at least you pukes are honest about your racism and general dumbfuckery
did your parents raise you to be a douchebag or did it come naturally?
LOL... benzoid and NYBOB... still pushing Hitler's 'elders of zion' conspiracy after 100 yrs
how did you become so insane?
thanks for proving that paultards are all conspiracy morons and racist douchebags
were you born a moron? or did you have to work hard at it?
your buddy NYBOB worships Hitler
congratulations... birds of a feather
congratulations,, thanks for letting us know you worship Adolf Hitler... have you ever thought about getting an exorcism?
The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is an antisemitic hoax purporting to describe a Jewish plan for global domination... Adolf Hitler and the Nazis publicized the text as if it were a valid document, although it was exposed as fraudulent. After the Nazi Party came to power in 1933, it ordered the text to be studied in German classrooms. The historian Norman Cohn suggested that Hitler used the Protocols as his primary justification for initiating the Holocaust—his "warrant for genocide".
congratulations... why are all pautards racist insane fucks?
or should I ask why are all racist insane fucks paultards and tea-bagging douchebags... birds of a feather
The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is an antisemitic hoax purporting to describe a Jewish plan for global domination. It was first published in Russia in 1903, translated into multiple languages, and disseminated internationally in the early part of the 20th century. Henry Ford funded printing of 500,000 copies that were distributed throughout the United States in the 1920s.
Adolf Hitler and the Nazis publicized the text as if it were a valid document, although it was exposed as fraudulent. After the Nazi Party came to power in 1933, it ordered the text to be studied in German classrooms. The historian Norman Cohn suggested that Hitler used the Protocols as his primary justification for initiating the Holocaust—his "warrant for genocide".
good god man, what an insane fuck you are
better yet why don't you try to charm a snake
the poison will not harm you... god says so
"Snake-handlers point to scripture as evidence that God calls them to engage in such a practice to show their faith in him. Mark 16: 17-18 reads, "And these signs shall follow them that believe: In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues. They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover."
http://abcnews.go.com/US/serpent-handling-west-virginia-pastor-dies-snake-bite/story?id=16459455#.T9jwusUmjDc
yep,, you believe that stupid lie also
go read your bible and make love to your guns
let me guess... i bet you have posted the stupid lies that Obama is coming to take your guns... do you believe that lie also?
absolutely,, wouldn't want you to hurt yourself
it's not the gun that kills, it's the idiots behind them
oops, left off the link to that piece
http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/jamie-dimon-congress-testimony-9678137
take your phony military hubris and shove it up your rectum, along with all your other pathetic lies
you're just another phony POS
yes you are still a monumental liar
as well as a imbecile who posts that Obama is a scary muslim
did your parents raise you to be such a douchebag, or did you come by it naturally?
Jamie Dimon and the Gambling Away of All of Us
By Charles P. Pierce
Master of the Universe Jamie Dimon went before Congress this morning, tugging his well-compensated forelock and explaining how terribly, terribly sorry he was to have had J.P. Morgan Chase, the death star for which he is currently employed, soak the system for $2 billion in losses through the kind of exotic trading that every Master of the Universe pinky-swore would never, ever, happen again after similar shenanigans nearly ate the world. First, he read out the conditions of his nolo plea for being pretty much the kind of same hubristic, reckless high-roller that all of them are, despite the fact that I have to listen to the kept press of the financial-services industry — hello, CNBC! — repeatedly tell me what a good guy he is. Gaze in awe:
What Went Wrong:
We believe now that a series of events led to the difficulties in the synthetic credit portfolio. Among them:
CIO's strategy for reducing the synthetic credit portfolio was poorly conceived and vetted. The strategy was not carefully analyzed or subjected to rigorous stress testing within CIO and was not reviewed outside CIO.
In hindsight, CIO's traders did not have the requisite understanding of the risks they took. When the positions began to experience losses in March and early April, they incorrectly concluded that those losses were the result of anomalous and temporary market movements, and therefore were likely to reverse themselves.
The risk limits for the synthetic credit portfolio should have been specific to the portfolio and much more granular, i.e., only allowing lower limits on each specific risk being taken.
Personnel in key control roles in CIO were in transition and risk control functions were generally ineffective in challenging the judgment of CIO's trading personnel. Risk committee structures and processes in CIO were not as formal or robust as they should have been.
CIO, particularly the synthetic credit portfolio, should have gotten more scrutiny from both senior management and the firmwide risk control function.
Translation from the original Ass-Coverish:
1) The people who worked for me didn't know what they were doing.
2) The people who worked for me didn't know what to do when things went bad because they didn't know what they were doing in the first place.
3) The people who worked for me didn't know how to manage the things that went bad because they didn't know what they were doing in the first place.
4) We were replacing some of the people who didn't know what they were doing in the first place with some new people who didn't know what they were doing in the first place, either.
And, 5) Jesus Christ On My Private Jet, I hired me some meatheads.
If the guy fixing my roof screwed up as badly as JP Morgan did, and then presented me with this list of excuses, there would be really bad stuff posted about him on Angie's List, all's I'm saying.
See, Jamie, here's the deal: Nobody trusts you bastards anymore. I'm not talking about that kept press, or by the walking sublets you have haunting the halls of Congress. I mean out in the world where people are still suffering the aftershocks of what the lot of you did to the country over the previous decade. Maybe this matters to you. Very likely, as long as you have the two entities I mentioned in your crisply tailored pocket, it doesn't. But there were some interviews in a Democracy Corps poll yesterday that ought to give you pause:
"Romney just strikes me as kind of out of touch. (Non-college-educated man, Columbus, OH)
"Romney still wants to keep it to where all the high rich people can still [have] low tax. (Non-college-educated man, Columbus, OH)
"Out of touch. (College-educated woman, Bala Cynwyd, PA)
"I think he talks out of both sides of his mouth, I mean having all this money in foreign corporations, that's not right. (College-educated woman, Bala Cynwyd, PA)
"He's a Wall Street man. I don't trust him. (College-educated woman, Bala Cynwyd, PA)
(Steve M. at No More Mister Nice Blog did a fine job explaining why this poll is clear evidence that abandoning attacks on Romney based on the latter's career at Bain Capital was politically idiotic.)
It is considered declasse in our higher politics to mention this, but there actually is a class war underway in America, and it doesn't need politicians to stoke it. It happens in millions of little battles every day, over mortgages, and college loans, and retirement, and the simple, granite-like impassibility of the country's elites in the face of what's happening to the great mass of people in this country. Now, it's possible that our firmly purchased political system may be able to continue to divert the energies of that war in the directions most amenable to maintaining the status quo. (Blame the black people, the regulators, the drum circles, public school teachers, the Community Reinvestment Act, Van Jones!) But, sooner or later, someone's going to be desperate enough — or bold enough — to grab that energy and ride it to glory, and we all better goddamn hope that person has a good heart, because those kind of things can go awfully badly wrong. What the Wall Street casino is playing with is not house money. It belongs to all of us. They are gambling not merely with currency, but with the stability of the political system. Someone is going to pay.
OMG, what a revelation! you have discovered some dishonest people
so if we just kill all unions and hand everything over to privatization all people will be honest and trustworthy
the magic hand of the free market is honest and trustworthy... Alan Greenspan told me so
give us MORE Bush policies of unfettered free market, no regulations, just trust us!
yes that worked out so well, just go ahead and double down on stupidity
Wildfires and the GOP: when those who want less government still want essential public services
Charles P. Pierce points out an interesting (or maybe sad? pathetic?) bit of Republican hypocrisy regarding the High Park Fire in Colorado and federal firefighters (i.e. government parasites):
http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/colorado-new-mexico-wildfires-9645325
I’m not sure about the rest of the country, but, contra Willard Romney, I think both Colorado and New Mexico could use some more firefighters right now. That is certainly the opinion of the Colorado congressional delegation, which has dispatched a letter to the federal government appealing for more help. The delegation includes Rep. Scott Tipton (R -3d CD), Rep. Cory Gardner (R-4th CD), Rep, Mike (Stuck In A Groove) Coffman (R-6th CD). (As it happens, Gardner’s district is the one most directly affected by the wildfires.) Needless to say, but we’ll say it anyway, all three of these folks voted for the Paul Ryan budget, which would cut the daylights out of things like federal firefighting programs, which already are pretty imperiled.
and if you dumb shits elect the phony POS Romney he will double down on the stupidity that got us in this mess
but your are either too dumb to know it or don't give a shit
you are so dumb you think Obama is a muslim terrorist
how did you get to be so bone-jarringly stupid?
or do you just post these lies - Obama has increased the debt by 5 trillion dollars - because you are a flaming racist?
yep,, if nothing else, when a tea-tard/paul-tard/repuk-tard is cornered with the truth there is always the last resort of running and hiding... turn on the lights and they scurry away, and pretend it never happened (or they delete ur post and ban you)... Romney is perfecting this talent... this dipshit looks to be even worse than Bush, if that's possible
obviously 'N' prefers to rub shoulders with sociopaths and conspiracy nuts
that's why he likes GEO... if i remember correctly GEO was banned from another board for advocating shooting teachers on site
birds of a feather flock together
Glenn Beck signs five-year, $100 million radio deal, proving there is no shortage of conspiracy-loving lunatics ready to follow gold-pushing, race-baiting, fearmongering nutjobs into an echo chamber of hate.
threatening someone's life??... LMAO, you are as insane as NYBOB... i guess you'd miss NYBOB's "informative" posts
why don't you join NYBOB and take a long walk off a short pier
yes, there's been times when fluctuations were rising and times when it was falling... the current trend is now rising... one can argue until the cows come home what is causing it... whether it's natural oscillations or also man-made contributions... bottom line, if you want to live on a coastline and not be influenced by rising sea levels then move to N.C. where they have a law against it... i guess they will arrest the sea and fine it if it dares to rise on their coast