The Goat Pen

This place sure has gotten quiet since Bronco Bama was given ANOTHER 4 YEARS !!!

bluetick wrote:

puterbac wrote: Yeah I understand it. Efficient companies need fewer employees to do the same amount of work and have higher profits.

What you don't seem to understand is that companies with thousands of employees are sitting on cash instead of investing it or expanding because they do not know what their taxes are going to be and what the cost of Opramacare is going to be to them. You do know that there are THOUSANDS of regs from the boards created in Opramacare that have yet to be written right? Do you know what they will be, um no and neither does anybody else. Its called uncertainty and there is plenty of it. A CEO that ignores this isn't a very good CEO. And it is funny that the original article was basically salivating over the 2 trillion in cash reserves that biz currently has. That is all the companies in the USA for fucks sake. Govt will spend that much in 6 months or less.

LOL Well which is it, genius? "Efficient companies need fewer employees to do the same amount of work"...or "uncertainty and there is plenty of it" precludes CEOs from hiring? Which company line are you going with, Smithers?

Let me type slower.....

Profits are up cause they are more efficient and have cut where they can. In addition they are not expending cash on projects (people, equipment, material) so this also stays on the bottom line and shows as a profit. Why are they not? Allow me to quote little Enos from Smokey and the Bandit: Because of the uncertainty DUMMY. I don't know how to make it simpler than business doesn't know what it costs are going to be from Obamacare, what its tax rates are going to be, or what the overall climate is going to be aka US debt etc. When nobody knows the prudent thing is hunker down and wait until some certainty is added. That hasn't added yet.

bluetick wrote:

Dr. Strangelove wrote:I'ma go on the record and say as far as mistresses go, you could do a lot worse than Paula Broadwell.

Reminds me some of Lauren Holly from Down Periscope.

Ooooh...nice call tick.

Nice call.

[img2]http://content7.flixster.com/photo/14/0 ... 37_gal.jpg[/img2]

I haven't been here much so I don't know the protocol of this board, but on pretty much every other board I participate in, if you post a contested statement without linking to some sort of mainstream, respected source that backs you up, they consider it "talking out of your ass."

That's all well and good, but who gets to decide who is respected and mainstream?

I used to link articles from WND and Newsmax and 90% of those were just AP articles, but because they were carried with a link from WND or Newsmax it was "laughable". Its an AP article for crying out loud.

Basically "respected and mainstream" is in the eye of the beholder.

puterbac wrote:

I haven't been here much so I don't know the protocol of this board, but on pretty much every other board I participate in, if you post a contested statement without linking to some sort of mainstream, respected source that backs you up, they consider it "talking out of your ass."

That's all well and good, but who gets to decide who is respected and mainstream?

I used to link articles from WND and Newsmax and 90% of those were just AP articles, but because they were carried with a link from WND or Newsmax it was "laughable". Its an AP article for crying out loud.

Basically "respected and mainstream" is in the eye of the beholder.

Respected and mainstream IS in the eye of the beholder. What is not in the eye of the beholder is that some people actually understand the topic they are discussing and yet others simply post links without fully understanding that the link may direct you to a writer who has no understanding of the topic. All that writer can do is attempt to "reframe" the argument in an effort to win it, instead of understanding it. That is what we had with our "Pastor." I went step by step and dismantled his links with a very basic level of understanding and well, he pretty much had nothign to add at that point. That is pretty much why I've written him off as a Pastor and put him in the 12-year-old-boy-who-surfs-the-Daily-Kos-but-doesn't-have-a-clue-about-the-real-world category.

" I am calling you out as either a fool or a con man. That is all that you are, one or the other. No one here believes anything of what you are saying."

If no one believes anything he's saying, how can he be a con man?

'No I am not 10ac's leader, but JD is just a kid. Just put him on ignore. I already have."

Yeah, it's pretty obvious from the way that you keep mentioning him in every single one of your posts that you are "ignoring" him...

hedge wrote:" I am calling you out as either a fool or a con man. That is all that you are, one or the other. No one here believes anything of what you are saying."

If no one believes anything he's saying, how can he be a con man?

'No I am not 10ac's leader, but JD is just a kid. Just put him on ignore. I already have."

Yeah, it's pretty obvious from the way that you keep mentioning him in every single one of your posts that you are "ignoring" him...

Would you like me to write YOU off Hedge the way a did a couple years ago? That is fine with me, just let me know.

Can you include me too? Ban me, burn me, whatever... Not seeing your posts anymore would be a great holiday present.

"What are you feeling after watching that?"

Fired up...

"What are you feeling after watching that?"

It makes me think that women don't want girly men, but would rather have manly men. That is hardly a startling revelation. Therefore manly men should have plenty of opportunity to bed such women, and re-enact scenes from 50 Shades of Grey, with them, since most liberal women are dying for such treatment. Meanwhile, girly men will be announcers on NPR and celibate and never procreate. That is fitting from a Darwinian perspective.

Ok, just a few points:

-I audited Section 8 housing financial statements for 4 years and I still can't determine what the hell point you guys are arguing.

-Any megachurch pastor who has more than one location is interested more in padding his ego or pocketbook than what is in the best interest in the spiritual condition of his congregation.

-Housing crisis was fueled by artificially propping up the credit industry, taking it outside the parameters of capitalism. Sorry, George Bailey, not everyone is benefited by owning their own home.

Who artificially propped up the credit industry?

-Any megachurch pastor who has more than one location is interested more in padding his ego or pocketbook than what is in the best interest in the spiritual condition of his congregation.

Speaking of which, here's an interesting article about my seminary classmate and Atlanta religious rock star, Andy Stanley:

http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/17/us/andy-stanley/

Andy has several churches connected by a super high tech laser hologram system.

sardis wrote:-Housing crisis was fueled by artificially propping up the credit industry, taking it outside the parameters of capitalism. Sorry, George Bailey, not everyone is benefited by owning their own home.

That is a big part of it, but just a part of it. George Bailey built 2 bedrooms, a livingroom, a kitchen, and a bath. Largely, those homes (the OLD, little itty-bitty, affordable ones) did not wind up in foreclosure.

Oh yes they do. I picked up three in foreclosure and flipped them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VlUuso1 ... ata_player

This is pretty funny. I felt the same way the next morning.

Professor Tiger wrote:

-Any megachurch pastor who has more than one location is interested more in padding his ego or pocketbook than what is in the best interest in the spiritual condition of his congregation.

Speaking of which, here's an interesting article about my seminary classmate and Atlanta religious rock star, Andy Stanley:

http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/17/us/andy-stanley/

Andy has several churches connected by a super high tech laser hologram system.

Wow. GREAT read.

sardis wrote:Oh yes they do. I picked up three in foreclosure and flipped them.

yeah, the idea that the poor caused the housing crisis is a fallacy. The banking industry easily could have handled every dollars worth of the cost of the poor who defaulted on their loans. Two bigger issues though were and are present. One was the packaging of high risk housing loans and the inexplicable rating of these "securities" much higher than they should have been and the sale of these for multiple values of the actual costs of the loans. It wasn't the housing loans but the securitization of these loans that were the problem.

The second problem is the amount of middle and upper class deciding to buy a house using "balloon" (the old term), mortgages to get bigger houses than they should. I still remember one guy who kept asking me why I had a 15 year mortgage, he kept getting these balloons and just refinancing them.

I am buying the taxes for those who haven't been paying their property taxes and picking up some foreclosed properties. it is not limited at all to the poor. Most of them were lost the first year.

Maybe this will help tick and others understand what I have been saying for a year or more....its the uncertainty dummies...and this is just focused on short term of fiscal cliff etc. Doesn't even get into unknown regs of opramacare.

Investment Falls Off a Cliff

U.S. Companies Cut Spending Plans Amid Fiscal and Economic Uncertainty

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... TopStories


.......

Corporate executives say they are slowing or delaying big projects to protect profits amid easing demand and rising uncertainty.

......

"The whole world is looking for stability and clarity from the United States," said David Seaton, chief executive of Fluor Corp., FLR +1.45% a large engineering and construction firm. If uncertainty isn't removed, he said, "people will sit on their war chests of cash and return it to shareholders. You'll have a retarded growth trajectory."

I guess we'll see...


Capretta and Levin: Why ObamaCare Is Still No Sure Thing

The majority of state governors are Republicans, and they have the power to disarm the health-care law.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 28344.html