The Goat Pen

Nobody posts at his forums. You ban everybody and eventually its just you. The only posts made at his place in the past year are his own, and before that its just him and kathaksung.

aTm wrote:Nobody posts at his forums. You ban everybody and eventually its just you. The only posts made at his place in the past year are his own, and before that its just him and kathaksung.

exactly. Lonely. So, he goes after George Will....

Im still not sure how Ferguson Foont is related to that George Will editorial you linked unless you want us to scroll through all the comments looking for it.

aTm wrote:Im still not sure how Ferguson Foont is related to that George Will editorial you linked unless you want us to scroll through all the comments looking for it.

Don't scroll, he isn't worth it. But he is in there. I just figured I'd never see his insanity again....

...the world is a small place.

"I don't want the speculators out of the market. Just want them to put 75% of the money to speculate on said oil. That will change a lot of shit real quick."

No it won't. Speculators already "put up" the whole amount, in the form of credit, which is one of the biggest money-makers for large brokerage firms. As long as you've got enough to cover a basic margin requirement, and can then meet any margin calls for positions that go against you, that's all that's required for a trade to take place. Somebody is putting up the entire amount and charging you interest to "hold" the position for you until you liquidate at a profit/loss or blow out completely. Having to put up 75% of the money on a long speculative position makes no more sense than requiring home buyers to put up 75% of the money for their house and only get 25% from the bank...

"In his personal life, he must be a horrible person to work with and an impossible person to be friends with."

IB describes himself perfectly...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelookou ... 0-lb-llama

[youtube]MZa3EYWCY3w[/youtube]

I posted this on Facebook, so I'm double dippin' here, but fuck it. Its a celebration bitches!

I got a letter from the SFMTA regarding a parking ticket I challenged, it read as follows: ""We have reviewed your claim and found it to be valid. Therefore, the citation has been dismissed."Additionally, I challenged a speeding ticket I got earlier this year and won that one too. That means I am 2-0 vs The Man in 2011. I AM ABOVE THE LAW! Fuck you California assholes trying to backdoor tax your citizens because you can't get taxes raised in legislature. Fuck you in your stupid lazy assholes. I win, you lose! I'm the King, I'm the King, I'm the King of Cal-i-for-ni-a! I knocked out the meter maids and CHiPs and I'm gonna knock 'em out again! I'm the King! I'm the King!

I got this fucking parking ticket in February. It took those fuckers until June to dismiss that shit. Assholes. Eat shit and die meter maids. You too shit head CHiPs making ticket quotas. God forbid you fucking do something useful like patrol for actual crime rather than try and line your fucking coffers on the backs of tax payers who are commuting for work so they can then pay the taxes that already pay your fucking salaries so you can fucking write chicken shit tickets on said tax payers. Fuck you in your stupid eyeholes. I WIN! Fuck you eat me.

TheBigMook wrote:I That means I am 2-0 vs The Man in 2011. I AM ABOVE THE LAW!

I think Nico here has some bad news for Mook.

How did you get out of the speeding ticket? And the parking ticket, for that matter.

These days in Cali you can challenge a speeding citation without actually going to court. You print up some paperwork online and submit it when you get your notice in the mail telling you where to send your check to the ticket (or what court to appear at to challenge it.) A coworker had looked into it when he had gotten a ticket a couple of weeks earlier and he said that from what he read on line, the best bet to get out of a ticket was to simply write "Not Guilty" in the "Evidence" section of the paperwork. I guess if you actually try and give, you know, evidence, the court gets testy and decides to investigate. So instead you write "Not Guilty" and hope the cop who wrote the citation is too lazy to respond. So, really I did not win based on any great skill. Either the cop was too lazy or had already met his quota and didn't want to be bothered or decided to let it go unchallenged because I wasn't a prick when he pulled me over. In any case, when you challenge, you do still have to send in a check for the cost of the ticket as "bail" while its under review. Then, if you lose they keep it, if you win, they send you a check from the state refunding your money (which is what happened to me.)

The parking ticket I challenged similarly, on the notice they send you can fill state your reasons for why the ticket should be dismissed. I wrote that the spot where I was parked was not properly signed. This could be true, I don't really remember one way or the other seeing a sign. It could be that they actually investigated and found no sign, but I have a feeling that since it took several months for them to get around to it, they decided it wasn't worth the effort and just cut their losses and dismissed it.

These days in Cali you can challenge a speeding citation without actually going to court. You print up some paperwork online and submit it when you get your notice in the mail telling you where to send your check to the ticket (or what court to appear at to challenge it.) A coworker had looked into it when he had gotten a ticket a couple of weeks earlier and he said that from what he read on line, the best bet to get out of a ticket was to simply write "Not Guilty" in the "Evidence" section of the paperwork. I guess if you actually try and give, you know, evidence, the court gets testy and decides to investigate. So instead you write "Not Guilty" and hope the cop who wrote the citation is too lazy to respond. So, really I did not win based on any great skill. Either the cop was too lazy or had already met his quota and didn't want to be bothered or decided to let it go unchallenged because I wasn't a prick when he pulled me over. In any case, when you challenge, you do still have to send in a check for the cost of the ticket as "bail" while its under review. Then, if you lose they keep it, if you win, they send you a check from the state refunding your money (which is what happened to me.)

The parking ticket I challenged similarly, on the notice they send you can state your reasons for why the ticket should be dismissed. I wrote that the spot where I was parked was not properly signed. This could be true, I don't really remember one way or the other seeing a sign. It could be that they actually investigated and found no sign, but I have a feeling that since it took several months for them to get around to it, they decided it wasn't worth the effort and just cut their losses and dismissed it.

Ugh, something is making my computer lurch and choke. I couldn't even manage to Edit or Delete the double post. Sorry. I tried a hard reboot and its still doing it more or less. Long pauses sometimes between me typing and the words appearing the box.

Mook is banned.

Mook is a dumbass.

Mook is a dumbass.

These days in Cali you can challenge a speeding citation without actually going to court. You print up some paperwork online and submit it when you get your notice in the mail telling you where to send your check to the ticket (or what court to appear at to challenge it.) A coworker had looked into it when he had gotten a ticket a couple of weeks earlier and he said that from what he read on line, the best bet to get out of a ticket was to simply write "Not Guilty" in the "Evidence" section of the paperwork. I guess if you actually try and give, you know, evidence, the court gets testy and decides to investigate. So instead you write "Not Guilty" and hope the cop who wrote the citation is too lazy to respond. So, really I did not win based on any great skill. Either the cop was too lazy or had already met his quota and didn't want to be bothered or decided to let it go unchallenged because I wasn't a prick when he pulled me over. In any case, when you challenge, you do still have to send in a check for the cost of the ticket as "bail" while its under review. Then, if you lose they keep it, if you win, they send you a check from the state refunding your money (which is what happened to me.)

The parking ticket I challenged similarly, on the notice they send you can fill state your reasons for why the ticket should be dismissed. I wrote that the spot where I was parked was not properly signed. This could be true, I don't really remember one way or the other seeing a sign. It could be that they actually investigated and found no sign, but I have a feeling that since it took several months for them to get around to it, they decided it wasn't worth the effort and just cut their losses and dismissed it.

Part bad-ass spy thriller, part cautionary tale about the karmic wheel turning when you try to influence foreign matters to suit your interests...

http://www.mensjournal.com/black-ops-an ... ney/print/

Bklyn wrote:Part bad-ass spy thriller, part cautionary tale about the karmic wheel turning when you try to influence foreign matters to suit your interests...

Thanks! I knew someone could feel me. Word.

I watched the debate last night. Obviously I'm biased in my opinions because I"m a Ron Paul guy but I wanted to give Herman Caine a chance since I've been reading so many people that like him.

I wasn't really impressed. He is folksy but he is also all over the place on his opinions and he got pinned down a couple of times for statements that come back to haunt him.

Romney was clearly the most prepared.

I was most frustrated with Santorum and Pawlenty. These two guys wouldn't answer a question without wrapping themselves around the flag speech before each question. I know people will flock to that but I hope those two crash and burn just because they are nothing more than stuffed suits who insult anyone with an IQ.

I thought Gingrich did a credible job of pulling his dick out of the fire but he was just as bad as Santorum and Pawlenty. Here is a typical quote that any one of them would have said that has no substance and is just meant to get the guy sitting on the coach to yell "HELL YEAH!'

Cain was asked about a quote where he said he would not hire a muslim on staff, and he clarified it by saying he wouldn't feel comfortable hiring a muslim. OK so that is bad enough, but Cain then fumbled....badly by trying to distinguish between hiring a "good" muslim and those that try to kill us.

The others chimed in with Romney being the polished speaker he is saying it didn't matter if the guy was muslim or not, he was going to hire people he knew and trusted so it wouldn't be an issue - the right answer.

Then Gingrich jumps in, and like I said, it could have easily been Santorum or Pawlenty that said this - but Gingrich says

"I'm gonna go out on a limb here (the most infuriating part since clearly he is just going for the safe "I love America" answer) and I"m not going to hire anyone that isn't loyal to the United States!"

Ron Paul didn't do very well. His biggest problem is that he can't explain his position with talking points. He has to turn every question into a referendum of his philosophy when just a 3 sentences would tell the audience what they want to know. He had a perfect opportunity last night regarding a question related to bringing manufacturing back. The gist of his answer was that our corporate tax policy is so high that companies are forced to offshore their resources and money when they really want to bring it back to the United States - and that is what he said, except it took him 5 minutes to get there and he just jumped in the middle of his thought process without giving the audience the benefit of any context as to what he was saying.

That was the first time I've seen Bachmann talk and she didn't come off as nutty as I thought. For the life of me though I can't figure out why the tea party likes any candidate that claims to be a social conservative first. To me that name in itself is an oxymoron. You can't legislate morality. Period. Why is that so hard to understand for Americans?