Wake me up when it crosses 2.6 million, which is 10% of the population of Texas. |
|
|
|
|
The damage in Greece is done, the debt basically cannot be paid off without some form of write-down. The only way forward is to balance the budget at a minimum which they are not doing.
|
|
|
|
|
You can pick up cuecats pretty cheap on ebay, usually less then $15 shipped.
|
|
|
|
Uhhhh....Bitcoin is money...hence, it's a Ponzi scheme. It's a little different in that those benefitting from the scheme are all those who hold BTC rather than the printer of fiat. But, I mean, duh -- it's as much a Ponzi scheme as the US dollar or GBP.
Ponzi scheme has a pretty specific meaning. Fiat money, social security, bitcoin and a million other things are not Ponzi schemes. Anything where someone might make or lose money is not automatically a Ponzi. A Ponzi scheme is advertised as an INVESTMENT (bitcoin, fiat money don't qualify) which falsified returns are supposedly earned (social security does not do this) and later investors money is used to pay the earlier investors these fake returns. |
|
|
|
Heilbroner’s characterization of environmental problems is as misinformed as his half century of wishful thinking about socialism. But this should not be surprising. Environmental issues frequently overwhelm intelligent thought and factual analysis. Scratch an environmentalist, find a communist underneath. That's why they're called watermelons: green on the outside, red on the inside. Troll much? |
|
|
|
It is obvious the creator of that video has no understanding of anything beyond basic math. Obligatory XKCD: http://xkcd.com/605/ |
|
|
|
No offense, but it doesn't look so great as a shirt. My reasoning is 1) Shaded things don't work so well on a shirt 2) the coin design might be a bit too complex for a shirt, which can be kind of distracting 3) The words bitcoin.org are in a yellowish color, on a white tshirt. However, it might look good in black. If you are interested maybe we could work up some kind of shirt design together that would work a bit better? The design does look pretty good in person but I do think black would be better. What kind of design are you thinking of? Do people prefer bitcoin.org, weusecoins.com or something else? |
|
|
|
Those who believe that Rand Paul is more socially conservative than Romney or just about any sitting Republican are quite ill informed.
He is likely more socially liberal than most Democrats.
While you may agree or disagree with his stances below, it is ludicrous to say that he is more socially liberal then most democrats. http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/Rand_Paul.htmRand Paul on Civil Rights Illegal to impose racial segregation in the private sector. (May 2010) Opposes same-sex marriage. (Nov 2009) Opposes affirmative action. (Aug 2010) Supports Amendment to prevent same sex marriage. (Aug 2010) Most Democrats Politicians are anything but liberal on social issues. Rather, they are authoritarian reactionaries seeking to impose their preferred social values/arrangements/preferences/priorities on the unwilling via the coercive power of state violence. They are the mirror image of the right wing; both are utterly opposed to personal freedom yet disagree about which forms of liberty are most important to quash. FTFY |
|
|
|
Those who believe that Rand Paul is more socially conservative than Romney or just about any sitting Republican are quite ill informed.
He is likely more socially liberal than most Democrats.
While you may agree or disagree with his stances below, it is ludicrous to say that he is more socially liberal then most democrats. http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/Rand_Paul.htmRand Paul on Civil Rights Illegal to impose racial segregation in the private sector. (May 2010) Opposes same-sex marriage. (Nov 2009) Opposes affirmative action. (Aug 2010) Supports Amendment to prevent same sex marriage. (Aug 2010) Wow, you read a politician's website and actually assume it accurate? What the hell for? It's on the Internet, so it must be true! Dude, those bs websites are written to throw the opposition off of the scent for as long as possible. In this case, the opposition is as much the old guard of the Republican Party as much as it is the Democrats. The worst thing that I can say about Rand is that, despite his upbringing, he is a very good polititian. I am not stating if he is a good politician or not. I am only commenting on the bolded statement about being more liberal then most democrats. As this is actually referenced to his VOTING RECORD I stand by my statement. |
|
|
|
Those who believe that Rand Paul is more socially conservative than Romney or just about any sitting Republican are quite ill informed.
He is likely more socially liberal than most Democrats.
While you may agree or disagree with his stances below, it is ludicrous to say that he is more socially liberal then most democrats. http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/Rand_Paul.htmRand Paul on Civil Rights Illegal to impose racial segregation in the private sector. (May 2010) Opposes same-sex marriage. (Nov 2009) Opposes affirmative action. (Aug 2010) Supports Amendment to prevent same sex marriage. (Aug 2010) |
|
|
|
The USD gained on all major currencies today. Up 0.42% against EUR. Probably not due to Obama winning, since that is exactly as predicted by all betting companies during the entire race. (Never mind the polls. Polls are inaccurate.) If anything is impacting the USD, it is the current deadlock in Congress. Congress has become a Polish parliament. The political climate is freezing cold, and everybody seems occupied in an eternal pissing contest. The Fiscal Cliff is getting closer. If Congress can't clear out the fog of damping piss and find a solution very soon, the U.S. credit rating will drop. And that will have an impact. Fortunately the Democrats gained in both chambers of Congress, on the expense of a few hard lined Tea partiers, and this gives slightly better odds of a solution. Even Romney said he would close tax loopholes. If they at least can agree on those, and let the Bush tax cuts expire, they will have time to make necessary cuts in public spending without sending the economy straight into recession. So based purely on on this post, I see you've sampled the kool-aid. There's no way that anyone can honestly say that democrats will actually will make 'necessary cuts'... ... wake up man. Increased tax revenue will only lead them to even more deficit spending, just like it always has in the past. The only way to potentially save the economy would be to drastically cut taxes - and demand a balanced federal budget. Not possible to both cut taxes and get a balanced budget in the current political system. Nice thought but the math just does not work. Increased taxes plus CUTS can lead to a balanced budget with politicians coding into law that the extra money needs to go to pay back the debt. I doubt they will do it but it certainly is possible. http://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/the-budget-and-deficit-under-clinton/ |
|
|
|
Why do you think that? (it is false)
I'm guessing because you implied that it was Mittens' platform. No I did not. The Tea Party has brought the Republicans too far to the right. Mitt is not so far to the right to be Tea Party but he is farther to the right then the average US citizen. The country is trending more fiscally conservative but more socially liberal. Why the fuck can't the Republicans get off of this socially conservative crap that is killing them. It basically makes a huge portion of the population have to pick the lessor of two evils. The Republican base would still (overwhelmingly) vote Republican even if the party went more to the center on social issues and you could pick up a huge number of democrats who are fiscally conservative. |
|
|
|
That would guarantee a democratic win. Clue: The republican and tea party base is not big enough. Going MORE to the right socially will ensure a loss no matter how good the economic side is. That's false. The root reason that Romney was the least likely choice to defeat an encumbent Democrat is because he wasn't crediblely conservative enough for the (rather vast) conservative wing of the Democratic party (think "Regan Democrats", mostly middle class private sector union employees with traditional views on family, religion and policy) to choose a Republican challenger over a Democratic encumbent. The result being is those "center-right" independents & Democrats simply don't see that voting is worth their time, and turnout is poor; thus leaving the outcome in the hands of the political junkies. Simply put, there is simply many more registered Democrats in the US than Republicans, so it's not possible for a Republican challenger to defeat a Democratic encumbent without convincing at least a portion of Democrats to switch sides. And what value is there in that when most non-political observers can't really see daylight between their positions on things that they care about? False? Only a time machine can determine that. But if you think going farther right will help the Republicans go ahead.... vote in the farthest right you can and see where it gets you. So you are saying a republican needs democratic votes to win..... but being more conservative will bring out those democratic votes? Ok. GO FOR IT! Regan won because he was a moderate republican not a foaming at the mouth tea party conservative. I don't think that you know anyone that considers themselves a Tea PArtier Why do you think that? (it is false) |
|
|
|
That would guarantee a democratic win. Clue: The republican and tea party base is not big enough. Going MORE to the right socially will ensure a loss no matter how good the economic side is. That's false. The root reason that Romney was the least likely choice to defeat an encumbent Democrat is because he wasn't crediblely conservative enough for the (rather vast) conservative wing of the Democratic party (think "Regan Democrats", mostly middle class private sector union employees with traditional views on family, religion and policy) to choose a Republican challenger over a Democratic encumbent. The result being is those "center-right" independents & Democrats simply don't see that voting is worth their time, and turnout is poor; thus leaving the outcome in the hands of the political junkies. Simply put, there is simply many more registered Democrats in the US than Republicans, so it's not possible for a Republican challenger to defeat a Democratic encumbent without convincing at least a portion of Democrats to switch sides. And what value is there in that when most non-political observers can't really see daylight between their positions on things that they care about? False? Only a time machine can determine that. But if you think going farther right will help the Republicans go ahead.... vote in the farthest right you can and see where it gets you. So you are saying a republican needs democratic votes to win..... but being more conservative will bring out those democratic votes? Ok. GO FOR IT! Regan won because he was a moderate republican not a foaming at the mouth tea party conservative. As for turnout, keep listening to right wing talk radio and ignoring the facts of what just happened. |
|
|
|
The USD gained on all major currencies today. Up 0.42% against EUR. Probably not due to Obama winning, since that is exactly as predicted by all betting companies during the entire race. (Never mind the polls. Polls are inaccurate.) If anything is impacting the USD, it is the current deadlock in Congress. Congress has become a Polish parliament. The political climate is freezing cold, and everybody seems occupied in an eternal pissing contest. The Fiscal Cliff is getting closer. If Congress can't clear out the fog of damping piss and find a solution very soon, the U.S. credit rating will drop. And that will have an impact. Fortunately the Democrats gained in both chambers of Congress, on the expense of a few hard lined Tea partiers, and this gives slightly better odds of a solution. Even Romney said he would close tax loopholes. If they at least can agree on those, and let the Bush tax cuts expire, they will have time to make necessary cuts in public spending without sending the economy straight into recession. So based purely on on this post, I see you've sampled the kool-aid. There's no way that anyone can honestly say that democrats will actually will make 'necessary cuts'... ... wake up man. Increased tax revenue will only lead them to even more deficit spending, just like it always has in the past. The only way to potentially save the economy would be to drastically cut taxes - and demand a balanced federal budget. Too bad nobody has balanced the budget before.... oh wait... Bill Clinton did with slightly higher taxes for the rich and a reasonable bi-partisan budget. Reagan tried your method of cutting taxes and hoping it would bring in more money. Simple math says it does not work. He tried. Math was right. Now that federal spending is so high it needs to be cut across the board as well as the tax increases. Only the combination can get there. |
|
|
|
...we can expect the price of bitcoin to increase even more as the USD continues to fail.
The USD gained on all major currencies today. Up 0.42% against EUR. Probably not due to Obama winning, since that is exactly as predicted by all betting companies during the entire race. (Never mind the polls. Polls are inaccurate.) Actually most of the accepted scientific polls showed the Obama win. It was FOX and other conservative outlets that consistently called those polls flawed and oversampled with democrats. http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/11/skewed_polling_meets_energized_conservatives.html |
|
|
|
That would guarantee a democratic win. Clue: The republican and tea party base is not big enough. Going MORE to the right socially will ensure a loss no matter how good the economic side is. |
|
|
|
i don't see how the storm helped Obama
Agreed. It actually hurt him in that area. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
