Jump to content

chocolat steve

Board Sponsors
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by chocolat steve

  1. I am pissed it took sevearl years to break that up. Slow justice or justice delayed is not acceptable either. Also, it took a lot of time and tenacity. 99% of folks wouldn't have gone through all that nor should they have to.
  2. Palin could be a Mensa member as far as I know. My issue with her originally was that she appeared totally inappropriate for the VP job at the time. My problem at the time was with McCain for choosing her. Palin and her views was Alaska's problem and McCain wanted it to be ours. She did appear stupid at the time. The social conservatives and religious right have way too much power in the Republican party. LK as far as I can tell there aren't any 'far left' candidates. Obama has governed very centrist. He's kept a lot of Bush appointments. I think McCain would have spent a shit load of money as well, the difference being it would have been on different things (not healthcare as an example).
  3. I've got no problem with women doing that. I just don't like the double standard as we discuss. Even some of the cougars will see their situation as different than a lot of us on here. The one thing I've learned about women is they can justify ANY act, especially those that deal with men and can and will see the same done by a male as 'different' and 'wrong'. Example. A guy who is married, with kids and his wife stops giving him sex and he goes out and gets laid is wrong. No matter what. Even the guy feels guilty about it. A married woman with kids, who has an affair will justify it. "I felt lonely, he was always working", "He didn't give me any attention, the other guy made me feel like a woman". That same woman will almost always say a guy who has an affair is wrong. Its in their DNA. I know a lot of you aren't religious but women have been tricking men since Even talked Adam into eating the apple. The bible is replete with women fcking over men with Samson and Delilah being the most famous.
  4. Of course it is and its a double standard. Look at the 'cougar' thing now. Its seen as cool. Its seen as woman empowerment. A 40 y.o. man with a 25 y.o. girl friend is perverted. A 40 y.o. woman dating a 25 y.o. guy gets high fives.
  5. I've met a few big ones. Not by choice. Modesty aside, I consider myself a bit of an 'expert' on online dating. This is the general rule of online dating. Exceptions? Of course but generally, men lie about age and status (married, in a relationship, etc.) and women lie about weight. Also, its very common for women over 35 or so to post a pic that doesn't reflect how they look currently. Women will post their best picture not their current one. The one that is 5 years old and 30lbs ago. Any pic of a woman over 35, add 25lbs minimum. Usually more but that much at a minimum. Sites ask you to pick your body type. Any woman who says 'average' is overweight to some degree. In their minds their overweight size is average and I must agree...lol. As a general rule. Run, don't walk, away from any womon online who has 'No liars or cheaters' on her profile. These have been dogged and are bitter and will make you go through hell to sniff the panties and if or when you do ever get it (and its NEVER worth it), they will cyber/tech stalk and checkup on you. I've told female friends who have tried to not to. It goes without saying I told them. It tells guys you are bitter.
  6. The Republican party really needs to do some self reflection and get its house in order. Palin or someone like her wouldn't have had any chance of being credible to most of the party years ago. Your extremely right wings usually had no chance at any national office. Their state or disctrict was as far as they could go. Jesse Helms was never a viable national candidate for example. Once in a while you get a Wallace who surrounds his ultra right ways in populist cloak but it doesn't happen often. Same with far left candidates. Feinstein had to recreate herself as a centrist to get to be a senator. She was the mayor of SF. The dictionary definition of far left. I don't follow the tea pary thingy that much, so I have a general question. Have the Republicans 'hijacked' the Tea Party? I don't mean that as a negative thing as I couldn't find another word as i was writing (influenced sounded too mild and I though about 'usurped'). Everytime I see a Tea Party supported candidate he or she is a Republican and it seems Palin has some influence as well.
  7. The Jamaica thing has been going on for a very, very long time. I recall reading an article in Vibe magazine about it around the mid '90s. My sister's friends regularly made trips down there. The women are almost always 40 plus. Many are married. Many are divorced or single (for a reason, no one wants them because they are fugly/overweight). Its not just outside the U.S. they go. In LA and a lot of other cities there are a few black and sometimes latino places where mainly white women go to find black and latin guys. I used to go those spots..lol. There are some jazz concerts where it happens as well. Probably the biggest meeting place of them all is the net. I am on a few online dating sites. The one place I can go to meet white women are the black dating sites. Go to blackpepolemeet or soul singles dating sites and you'll see tons of non black women. Mostl white but also latin, asian and other (middle eastern, european, etc.). I've met tons of non black women off those sites. From what I have seen of the women, they are lonely and sexually frustrated because they are not as desired and men don't go after them generally. At least that's the single and divorced ones. Usually over 35, a bit overweight but you also have the few attractive ones who simply have a fetish for ethnic dating. The internet offers anonymity. While they sometimes to go jazz clubs or latin dance clubs, there is a lot fo anomosity from the black and latina women at these venues bcause of the increased competition.
  8. One would think that even though they may...and I mean 'may' not have to abide by the constitution at customs you'd think the government would try as much as possible to recognize the rights afforded in it, especially to citizens. They are on a fishing expedition the vast majority of the time with no inkling of the traveler fitting any sort of profile that would need further inspection. It goes to show you that given the opportunity to do anything the government will do it (customs, guantanamo, etc.). The founders and framers of the constitution knew what they were doing. They knew human nature. A history professor of mine once said that the framers knew they'd be running the country. They understood human nature and were protecting the country against themselves at the time as well as the future powers that be against the people. If this story was the same but was in some mideast country, China or Africa we'd all be posting about how backwards they are and how no modern, civilized nation would conduct themselves in that manner. I firmly believe the constitution, for the most part, isn't worth the paper its written on nowadays. Through the Patriots Act and other legilation, etc. the government has pretty much done away with it. The odd 'victory' here and there when they get too brazen about trampling on it, is the exception to the general rule. I have no expectations that the constitution means much anymore. I also believe the government can and will do anything it wants irrespective of the rights we were told were God given. Sad. It was a great idea at one time.
  9. Unbelievable. You want to get back at the family of the woman you killed because they justifiably made your life hell. Not an ounce of guilt. If ever there was a good reason for capital punishment its this guy.
  10. Ideologically as a small L libertarian I was against national healthcare. Nowadays, I'm an independent. No, that's not true, I'm so jaded and cynical that disintereste best describes me. Sad and embarrassed to say that but its true. The country has too many of 'us'. My new view on things is that when either party fights tooth and nail over an issue its not so much about their ideology but about who foots the bill. The lobbying groups with the real power. Be it big oil, unions, or whatever. Can we blame them? You should be loyal to who is putting money in your pocket and financing your campaign. The voter is just a necessary evil that must be manipulated into going along with what the big money wants. A lot of legislation is drafted initialy (sometimes written almost in entirety) by said groups. American companies historically made money while paying some of the best wages in the world if not the best. People flocked here for those jobs. I'll use the auto industry as an example. In the past the big auto companies got bigger even though their employees were paid more than their counterpart elsewhere around the globe. They became the biggest companies in the world. They didn't lose because labor priced them out (not that it helped), but because they got greedy, started making shoddy products, cutting back on quality to maximize profits and lost their competitive edge by not looking at trends. Toyota and Honda and others seized on their missteps. We were no longer known for quality, we no longer saw the trend. The big 3 bucked the fact that oil prices were going up and up in the '70s starting with OPEC and their embargo and still had too many gas guzzlers in their fleets. Just to give an example of one industry. The health care industry, varied as it is: AMA, HMOs, drug industry, etc. have their own self interest in mind. If the average joe benefits its residual. The AMA, our doctors, who all swore a hippocratic oath to save lives, initially fought EVERY change in health care like HMOs, protected bad doctors, arbitrarily limiting the number of doctors to keep wages high, etc. We've been spending too much on defense for decades. In hindsight we didn't have to spend nearly as much in the cold war. We definitely do not have to nowadays. Its a HUGE part of our budget and a lot of it is wasted. I am also so cynical that I actually believe that the party stalwarts, both of them, while they all want to prosper personally, don't actually want the country to prosper if the other is in the white house. I truly believe that. Its about power, not about what's best for the country anymore and ideology and power is more important than seeing the country prosper if the other guy wins. I wasn't particularly crazy about Clinton early '90s but was happy as a clam we were all doing well in the '90s. Its not only the middle and poor classes that have to be taken care of nowadays, its the small to medium size busiensses. The big multinationals aren't the ones doing the hiring and not who we are working for nowadays. How many of us on here, including friends and families work for a S&P 500 company? If we took a poll I'd bet dollars to donuts (God, I've become my father!!) that the company is NOT a S&P 500 one and if so its in the last 100. In my working life I've worked for two and I've had several jobs. Going back to health care, I'll repeat what I've always said about it. Until the powers that be in that industry lose their hold on Congress and the white house NOTHING of any meaningful benefit to the american people, short or long term will ever come of it.
  11. Actually, its not too far off from what I've heard friends talk about. They don't trust ANY bank. They thought like women when it came to banks and 'size matters' and then their bank, their big major bank needed a bail out. My parents grew up with parents who suffered the depression and it wasn't lost on them. They have never trusted banks or any financial institution. I wouldn't be surprised if we found some money squirreled away in their home, god forbid, they pass on. Today has the same feel from what I hear. Bury it your back yard or stuff it in the mattress. Is there a truly safe haven for your money nowadays? Please don't say U.S. treasuries. ;-)
  12. That's the scary thing nowadays. If you have cash, a lot of it (unfortunatley I don't), where is the safe haven? Traditionally gold. Diamonds for some historically as well as U.S. treasuries. However, the world is so f**ked up now that there isn't really anywhwere 'safe' or is there?
  13. If the numbers are right and banning guns or whatever works for Austrailia, more power to 'em. What I don't want to hear is 'well banning works there so it should work in the U.S.' Argument. Firearms and the associative effects on a society is not a one size fits all for all societies. Its been argued before. Switzerland has far more guns than a lot of countries and less crime than per capita than countries that ban guns. Its culture and other things. America isn't one homogenous place. Its a huge, vast country with very different cultures within it. There are cities that have very restrictive gun laws that have far more crimes and murders per capita that a lot of areas that have a high number of people with guns and litteraly no gun crimes or murders. These places may be in South Dakota, Montana and Alabama but its still holds true. Americans have a long history with the idea of individuals owning guns. Its part of our national fabric. Very difficult for those outside the country to comprehend and I don't expect them to, as we don't comprehend as well things that we believe run against civil liberties that we think are 'God given' but are denied in 'civilized' coutntries. The Aussies made a decision. Congrats. Has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with gun ownership in America as some would like to make a connection.
  14. As I've said before, I think tackling health care so early was a big mistake. That said, it doesn't kick in for a few years yet, right? So, it doesn't have an affect right now. I'm not sure what is a good plan now. Ride it out? Dems want to spend. No surprise there. Spending your way out of a economic downturn is typical of the party. Not saying it won't work. I do't know. Its what I expected Obama to do as a Democrat. I don't know what the Republican plan is. I used to think I know but not sure. Is it the usual remove a bunch of regulations for big companies so they can hire? In some cases it does work. There are some rules and regulations that do stifle commerce and are restrictive. However, the assumption is the companies want to hire, specifically American workers. That's BS. Their primary concern is making money. If that means moving a factory overseas, its what they're gonna do. Its what I would do. As much as I would like to think I'll keep a factory here and hire Americans, if I have stockholders who demand the biggest bang for their buck, I have a fiduciary duty to do it. Its the smaller companies that do the 'keep the factory in this town because its my civic duty' thing. Nike and the huge ones will do what ever it can to make a buck. As it should...within the law and its up to 'us' (the government) to make sure they don't go overboard. That's a fine line and is tricky to get right. Lowering corporate taxes is tricky. Corporations are smart. You sometimes end up getting less revenue from companies who find a way of paying less tax on the little money they repatriate to the U.S. from overseas or whatever. Building up the infrastructure which is both needed and provides jobs seems one of the few things that will probably work in my humble opinion. The other obvious is cutting waste, pork and the rest but that won't happen. Not with the Congress we have now. One of the founders talked about a national lottery a few hundred years ago as a 'tax on the willing'. That's a way of raising some money. Work with it in conjunction with state lotteries so you don't kill that golden goose for the states. The state as well as the invidual gets a cut of it. I've heard estimates that the pot could regularly go in the hundreds of millions. Anyone have any ideas?
  15. If its there then fine. The point is we don't know so why shouldn't we or at least the Congress know. Even if they don't share the details. Let me ask you this why does it have to be secret. We are not on the gold standard so it doesn't change much if anything.
  16. When the financial crisis hit and people with any money left lost all faith in the stock and bond markets as well as U.S. treasuries, what was the only 'safe haven' they went to? Gold. Its why the price of it is sky high. In times of economic crisis money has traditionally flocked to the stuff. I have a second question. Had we not gotten off the gold standard under Nixon would we have been worse off economically? Frankly, I don't see how we could be any worse off. I'm not sure how an audit can be a waste of time and money. There should be untold billions worth of the stuff there. The GAO audits everything else, why can't it audit the gold? We are trusting the same government that has repeatedly lied to us. Paul is the ONLY one asking the questions that matter. Given his activist background, I'm surprised and disappointed Obama hasn't asked some similar questions as well.
  17. I think Obama's biggest mistake was going for health care so early. It didn't make sense to me. That said, had we had McCain win, I am convinced we'd have spent tons of money. Obama would have spent more probably...probably. We would have been in Iraq longer and that would have cost untold hundreds of billions. We would have still bailed out the companies. I really don't see how either party would not have spent trillions. I really don't. I don't see how McCain and the Republicans would have gotten us more jobs. My guess is it would be with incentives (tax breaks, looser regulatations, etc.) to big businesses and I would bet any amount they wouldn't hire because frankly people aren't spending and people don't have jobs or money. I know those of us who are committed to either party like to think there are vast differences between the two. The differences is in rhetoric NOT actions. The only difference I see between Obama and what McCain would have spent is where it would have been spent, not how much.
  18. When most countries were under the gold standard and we were not as big (economically) as we were I assume England and the rest of europe had far more gold than we did. And although not as powerful as they are now, China and other regions had vast sums of gold as well as known gold underground as well as assumed gold yet to be found (south america, africa, etc.) Wouldn't these countries have tried manipulate it then? We had no control over their actions then but we grew. Bascically, I'm saying is what's different than when we were on it? Countries were doing what you said would happen I asume, right? Under the current system, firms with billions of dollars at their disposal can manipulate currencies and have, including ours, albeit short term. Under the present system China has indirect control over our currency. Under the present system, OPEC, China or others can decide to use another currency other than the dollar. At one time it was the British pound that was master globally and ours weren't but we grew by leaps and bounds. Again, I'm not married to the gold standard as I am married to the concept of getting rid of the fed. It doesn't have to be the gold standard that replaces it. The transparency of having the U.S. Treasury in charge is my primary point. Its what our founders intended. LK brought up Paul's wish to go back to it as part of a reason not to end the federal reserve. Those two are mutually exclusive. Could there be problems with the gold standard? Sure. However, I don't think its as crazy as an idea as we are led to be. Is there a better way? Probably. But all I know is the present system has leading us on a decline. The FACTS are we grew and became the world's biggest economy while on the gold standard and without a federal reserve. I would ask the question, had we had no gold standard and had a federal reserve from the onset of this country would we have been the power we became?
  19. I want to touch on a few things you said. Yes, we were under the gold standard when the great depression happened. My question is so what? We have had economic problems off it as well. The gold standard isn't a cure all. Its purpose isn't to end depressions. Its purpose is to provide value for the currency and a check against the government just printing money at will. You mentionedd it ties the government's hands. Is that a bad thing? We've seen what the government does when its given a free hand. What 'currency move' are you referring to specifically? His suggestion of a gold standard is to end the federal reserve. Am I married to the gold standard? No. Am I married to the concept of ending the Federal Reserve? Hell yeah. You mentioned going back to it would cause deflation and economic problems. You site some figures. Lets assume Paul does win and talks Congress into going back to the gold standard. I've never seen a major government change that didn't happen over time. It certainly wouldn't happen overnight. Its a massive change. I would assume it would be a gradual change. I would assume it would happen over a few if not several years. The economic and commodity markets would have ample time to trend towards this new reality. There was an unprecdented economic boom when the country went back on the gold standard after suspending it during the civil war. (per the video in a previous post). Isn't there a chance it could help start an economic boom? You mentioned the U.S. government manipulated the price of gold when we were on the gold standard. I'm not saying they didn't but I have never heard this. Not saying it wasn't true. This question is where I want to be educated on how they did it. (as you know I put nothing pass this government)I'm a bit of a history nut and tried googling but couldn't find out how they did it (due to my lack of search skills most likely). As far as I can tell the gold stanard did not start or contribute to the crash of '29 or had a major effect on the recovery. Maybe it did. I've not heard it cited as such. People bought stock on margin (borrowed money) and couldn't pay for it when said stock dropped in price and the firms wanted their money. The country raised tarrifs to make money and stifled international trade. People stopped spending as anyone does when times are hard. Nothing to do with the gold standard. People lost faith in banks because so many failed and they lost their deposits. Again, nothing to do with the gold standard. However, I would agree that a gold standard is rigid or specifically brings rigidity to any government on it but I would argue that with the U.S. government at least, that is a good thing not a bad thing. We've seen it when its given a free hand. While on the gold standard and without the Federal Reserve standard of living rose. Since no gold standard and since the Fed Reserve has taken over our money supply, future generations are now worse off than the previous. Unprecedented. The record speaks for itself. You credit the fed with saving us from a depression but I contend the fed helped start it. Basically giving them credit for solving a problem they helped create. If you are a for a Feeral Reserve then we will never fully agree on Ron Paul. We got side tracked on the gold standard while discussing the overall suitability of Ron Paul himself. EVERY other major candidate is beholden in varying degrees (all of them to a fairly high degree) to the status quo that has us chained to a system that is eroding us as a country.
  20. LK, could the panics and depression occur inspite of the gold standard and not because of? I suggest that it was almost totally unrelegated banking and financial markets that caused these panics. I've mentioned this before. Certain industries, such as the railroad formed oligarchies that controlled supply, demand and pretty much stopped free market by excluding anyone not in the cabal. The stock market of 1929 didn't have the rules it has now. Rules against short selling, rules against double dealing, etc. The most recent crisis happened because the government allowed the markets to do things they weren't allowed to before. That's what caused the crisis and the Fed went along with it. This country became the worlds biggest economy while we were ON THE GOLD STANDARD. Could it be that if there were no gold standard during those panics that people would have lost faith in the currency? Its the public's trust that helped bring us back each time. Back then, your money meant something, it had value. It has none now. I don't think economics is as complicated as we may make out to be or as evolved so much. The world itself was on a gold standard from the Romans up to the 20th century and economies 'seemed' more complex in the British empire in the 19th century than the Roman empire in 100 A.D. Stock markets, shares, etc. Seeminlgy far more complex than the Roman times. Economics is simple. Trade is simple. I think the reason it seems complex is the banks, etc. create seemingly new, complex scams to separate us from our money and provide for themselves an advantage over us. At the end of the day nothing changes. You go to a store and buy a loaf of bread today pretty much the same way some person did in Rome 2000 years ago. No, I don't see the Fed as the savior of the last financial crisis but inherently part of the problem. The Congress and all of us treated Greenspan as if he was some deity. Our trust in the Fed turned out to be misplaced. The country was founded on transparency in government. The Federal Reserve isn't, as are other parts of the government. I'm not saying the public should know the details of every black op program, etc. but our own government uses national security as a reason to either lie to us, remove constititional rights and civil liberties or hide corruption.
  21. Isn't Alaska a mostly Repuublican state? Doubt the cops were pro Obama. That said, I am very wary of any arrests to anyone for exercising free speech. I'm not comfortable with most of it. However, the cops have to make a judgement call on the spot and balance what is free speech and what is disturbing the peace.
  22. I understand the insinuation and I love a conspiracy theory as much as the next guy...but (and you know there will be one)...2001 and the 1950s are totally different. For them to carry off something of this size and magnitude would appear on the surface completely beyond their capability and resources. This is way pass Mission Impossible, The Italian Job, etc. kinda stuff.
  23. Hi, LK. I'm not sure if it amounts to the same thing but he wants to make gold and silver legal tender as it once was (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul) However, Paul does not support a complete return to a gold standard, instead preferring to legitimize gold and silver as legal tender and to remove the sales tax on them. I think he wants a choice. Basically to make your money worth something. This interview he has in Forbes explains his position more clearly. http://www.forbes.com/2010/01/13/gold-standard-fed-intelligent-investing-ron-paul.html a few excerpts: So if you want to restrain government, you restrain the power to create money. And that's what gold does. A lot of people think, "Well, that means you're going to have to carry all that gold around in your pocket." No. There's nothing wrong with gold certificates. And it can be electronic gold. It's just that it restrains the power of individuals, especially secret individuals that have no oversight from Congress to create this money. also... For it to work, you should always check on who's promising you something beyond the money, that you can take that coin or your paper in and see if they really have the gold in the bank. And this literally came up after the Civil War. See, we were off the gold standard during the Civil War. And the Resumption Act of 1875, they had a three-year period and they said, "We're going to quit printing money." They withdrew some greenbacks and they said, "The gold's going to be available after three years." And actually it was a non-event. They didn't want to carry the gold around. But they wanted to know, once they knew the gold was in the bank, they went back to using their paper. The government didn't have deficit financing and they weren't running the world Its really a check against the government.
  24. I'm surprised at you. Take a look at his policy positions. Then tell me... There are a few things I disagree with him about. Even vehmently but its secondary or even tertiary (pro life, Civil Rights Act of 1964, ending birthright citizenship), to the positions he takes on what this country needs. He's not tainted. That in of itself makes him the only one in the government that will actually do what is needed. If he was elected he wouldn't be able to do it on his own anyway. The real enemy is Congress. That den of theives needs to be rehauled. A lot of Ron Paul's secondary issues I disagree with won't get past the Supreme Court anyway (birthright citizenship for example). Doesn't matter anyway, we are irrevocably f**ked. Its too late. It really is. The last economic crisis showed that as a people we have lost the will to do what we need to do. Toqueville's warning has come to fruition. The Congress has bribed us with out own money and its the end of the Republic. "nee ha" folks...start learning mandarin.
  • Create New...