Jump to content

sheeeit

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    703
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by sheeeit

  1. Heading to a poker tourney and wanting to play a little craps.  I think I get the HG method but would love a confirmation.

    When I do not have the dice- No bet on the initial roll.  When a point is established I place 3 bets on the non-point inside numbers (point is 6 so I bet on the 5,8,9).  Just straight bets at this point with no odds correct?  If the numbers hit I collect the winnings for the first two hits (next roll is a 5 I collect, next roll is a 9 I collect).  After that if a number hits I leave the bet as odds behind my initial bet correct (8 hits so I press the bet on the 8)?  So now I am getting "odds" on my 8 correct?  Or do I not ever get odds since I did not bet on the initial roll?

    Or better question, when I play the 3 inside numbers can I put odds bets on them right away?

  2. 29 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

    You said you have no problem with the science, but doubted the extent of CO2's effects on warming. Those are contradictory statements. The fact remains that the science is clear that: global warming is happening, it is being driven by increased CO2, and that increase is caused by humans. There is no real scientific debate on those points. 

    I didn't read the article posted and wasn't interested in your response to it. But, since asked, here is some material on rivers and nuclear reactors that support the original article:

    https://www.montelnews.com/en/story/eon-cuts-nuclear-output-amid-hot-spell/917602

    And here is an older NPR article: https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=13818689

    And an even older article from the Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2006/jul/30/energy.weather

    So, based on these, it does seem that warmer river water, both before and after cooling of the plants, is the issue. The water starts warmer. And it gets even warmer after use by the plants, ultimately causing adverse environmental consequences. The plants are shut down to avoid those consequences. 

    A couple of things and I appreciate the civilized discourse.  

    On the rivers, there is not any evidence anywhere that the rivers in France are warmer on average than they have been in the past as a result of global warming.  Of course rivers and lakes get warmer when it is hot outside.  But sporadic heat waves (which have occurred forever) that cause temporary problems are not a sign of whole scale climate change problems.  As mentioned in the article, the current heat wave that led to the issue in France was NOT as hot as it was in 1868.  Heat waves happen all the time.  Attributing this latest shut down to macro global warming is completely disingenuous. The issue was that due to increased temps the reactors were working harder/longer/ and required MORE river water for longer durations to cool so they backed off.  And literally for less than a day.

    The issue with crops has been brought up repeatedly and it is, again, very disingenuous.  Global grain production is at all time highs.  That some areas suffer  from drought each year is completely normal and has been happening since forever.  It is very disingenuous to blame lower grain production in Sweden in 2018 on global warming when Sweden set records for grain production last year.  

    And on the Chevron lawyer, you may be misstating what they actually agreed with.  The difference is slight but meaningful.  Everything I have read has said that the oilies have agreed that humans were contributing to warming.  Not that humans were the main drivers.  I find this in the IPCC report also and the 97% claim.  I could very well be wrong about this but I have tried to find definitive facts and it is surprisingly difficult. 

    What I think I have found and what I generally agree with is that the vast majority of scientists believe that the earth is warming and that humans are contributing to the warming through CO2 and other green house gas emissions.  What I could not find was that a vast majority of the scientists agreed that humans were the primary driver of the warming.  Virtually all agreed that humans contribute but not nearly as many believe that humans are primarily responsible.  As mentioned it is hard to get true numbers from surveys but I did find this:

    Quote

    In 2012 the American Meteorological Society (AMS) surveyed its 7,000 members, receiving 1,862 responses. Of those, only 52% said they think global warming over the 20th century has happened and is mostly man-made 

      Of course that is a small sampling and is 6 years old.  I just couldn't find anything else that was actually definitive.  

    And ultimately, the thing that matters is what happens if we keep warming.  What is the economic and social impact.  There is zero consensus on that front.  You can find as many scientists that will say warming on the lower end of projections will have a net positive impact on the world as those that do not.  And even the most ardent believers in climate doom must agree that, to date, the ability of us to predict the actual temp increases has been horrible.

    I think the issue is important and I support continued funding and research of the issue.  Like all things, we will get better at making predictions on the future as we go along.  I support continued awareness objectives to make people aware of the issue and let them do what they can to help reduce emissions.  I just do not support radical, expensive measures to combat the issue yet.  And I am not sure I will ever support any measure that does not have a global buy in from everyone, especially china and india .  China seems to be at least paying lip service to curbing emissions which is good.

  3. I will be shocked if he gets off.  His only chance is the fact that Gates admitted stealing from him.  Without that, there really isnt any defense.  I do not think it will or should work, but the argument that Gates was stealing so he kept Manafort in the dark on the details is at least a half court shot.

  4. 28 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

    Science agrees on those points. Pretty much unanimously. CO2 doesn't have "some" influence on warning. It is the the primary driver of climate change today. Again, even fucking Exxon admitted as much in court (see previous articles I posted). And the negative ramifications are overstated only if you are not a human being. The earth will be fine; humans, not so much. 

    Like I said, we will just disagree at this point on the effects.

    But it is certainly telling that you decided not to comment on the main point of my post which was that the article posted used completely bogus and/or made up stories/facts to bolster its point.  You seem fine with that.

  5. 2 hours ago, Horn Under a Bad Sign said:

    This paper is a perfect example of why some people question the hyperbole around climate change.  I do not question the actual science as I am sure that increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere have some influence on warming.  I think the actual influence is way, way overstated and I think the negative ramifications of an incrementally warming planet are way, way overstated.  It is doubtful people will ever agree on those points but, ultimately, time will tell.

    However, this paper is just full of shit under even basic scrutiny and serves as an example of why people tend to dismiss the entire issue.  Here is a direct section of the paper where they lay out the supposed dire effects of climate change:

    Quote

    The disruptions to everyday life have been far-reaching and devastating. In California, firefighters are racing to control what has become the largest fire in state history. Harvests of staple grains like wheat and corn are expected to dip this year, in some cases sharply, in countries as different as Sweden and El Salvador. In Europe, nuclear power plants have had to shut down because the river water that cools the reactors was too warm. Heat waves on four continents have brought electricity grids crashing.

    And dozens of heat-related deaths in Japan this summer offered a foretaste of what researchers warn could be big increases in mortality from extreme heat. 

    One by one:

    California fires- No evidence at all that these are the product of climate change.  Ca has had fires forever and these current fires and their scope were predicted years ago and Ca was warned of what would happen if thinning and brush removal were ignored.

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/chuckdevore/2018/07/30/californias-devastating-fires-are-man-caused-but-not-in-the-way-they-tell-us/#314f7ff70af9

    Wheat/Corn- Typical cherry picked data regarding Sweden.  First, just last year Sweden set an all time record for grain production. 

    http://www.world-grain.com/Departments/Country-Focus/Country-Focus-Home/Focus-on-Sweden.aspx?cck=1

    The issue with wheat in Sweden this summer is tied to actually too much rain last fall which prevented the winter wheat from fully developing.  Hardly an act of warming.  Further, globally wheat and corn are at historic highs.  Droughts happen ever year somewhere in the world.  The Oklahoma dust bowl  and droughts was n the 1930s.

    Rivers too hot for Nuclear-   This one is just too good.  It is completely misleading and just plain wrong.  First, the temp of the rivers used to cool the reactors was never changed or too high as the article states.  There was a fear that the water RELEASED from the reactors would make rivers too hot and that it might have an affect on fish life.  It was really just 1 old reactor in France (not anywhere else in Europe as the article suggested) and it was shut down for a whopping 1 afternoon.  Not mentioned in the article was that the same thing happened in 2003 and that the temps in France are still below the temps recorded in the 1940s there. Totally bogus claim.

    Electric grids crashing in 4 continents- I searched every combination I could think of from 2018 and can not find 1 single case of an electric grid crashing due to excessive heat anywhere.

    Japan heat Deaths- Obviously any deaths are tragic, but this is about climate change effects.  138 people died of heat related issues in japan this year.  Comparatively, over 900 died due to heat waves in 2007.  Further, the current average high temps in japan are still not as high as those recorded in 1868.  I am certain recordings are much more accurate now than in 1868 but, somehow, the temp in japan got just as hot in 1868 as it is now and that was way before the industrial revolution.  

    So, to recap, every single thing that the article claimed as alarming effects of climate change was just bullshit.  It is the problem with the issue.  The facts do no stand on their own so people resort to lying and exaggerating and cherry picking to try and prove their point.  For the sane folks, that is just a sign that their underlying premises are bad.

     

    • Like 7
  6. 13 minutes ago, Nivek said:

    You don't coordinate with a guy like Trump on something important and actually clandestine.  You work with him knowing it will ultimately come out due to his incompetence.  When everyone observes the shitshow that undermines the credibility/legitimacy of the administration and really tests the country and displays the corruption as the republicans run cover for him.   

    I actually kind of like this.  So the russians help trump but do not actually let trump know that they are helping.  Then, after he wins, they let it be known that they helped which in turn  creates chaos and causes the country to implode.

    I kind of like that angle.  I mean it completely removes any conspiracy angle but it actually would be a pretty sinister plan.

  7. 8 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

    So wait, your suggestion is that the masters of espionage would/should use people who have an open and obvious connections to the Russian government and a history of spying? Because I'm not sure you understand . . . ummm, anything. 

    No you moron.  I am suggesting that it is seriously ridiculous to think that the Russian spy team would try and start a massive conspiracy operation targeting the potential POTUS using random people that they have absolutely no idea how they would react or act or anything.  It is comical.

    And lets be clear.  I am not saying that this meeting proves there was no collusion.  Mueller still has to say that.  I am saying that there is no way that this meeting was the work of Putin and his spy team.  

     

  8. 2 hours ago, TornACL said:

    What the dipshit trolls fail to understand is that once you've accepted and participated in a meeting with the Russians and don't notify the FBI, you've colluded. You've conspired. End of story.

    Sweet.  Mueller gets a lay up.

    • Fuck You 3
  9. 3 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

    What's even better is the "there is no explanation for such a meeting other than the Trump campaign had a severe case of the stupids."

    Well . . . yeah.

    You goofballs have the reading comprehension of an 8 year old.  Trump co may indeed be monumentally stupid but that is not the point I was making.  I was saying that if the plan to work a massive conspiracy between trump and russia was going to be hatched and there was going to be russian election help to Trump and then sanctions easing to russia that it is too stupid for any sane person to believe that Russia/Putin, who you guys have called the master minds of espionage, would kick off the plan in the manner that is being suggested.  I do not think russia is that stupid.

     

    What a plan.  I can just see the russian spy chiefs deciding they are going to perpetrate one of the biggest espionage operations in modern history and their collective plan was to have some unknown British music manager with a connection to a russian pop star send an email to Trump Jr on an open server and ask for a meeting.  Then have that music manager (who has zero connection to the russian govt and zero connection to anything intelligence related) sit in on the meeting so he can hear the entire collusion plan and just hope he doesn't say anything.  Then they are going to have a relatively unknown russian lawyer with zero history of spying conduct the meeting.  Further, just to make it really spy like, they will have her invite another person to join the meeting the day of the meeting who has zero connection to any of this and hope he doesn't say anything.  Then make sure there is another person there acting as an interpreter and hope he doesn't say anything.   Then have them waltz right into Trump Tower with a horde of media and constant cameras present.  Then just hope that Trump Jr does not have anyone on his side (considering they had no idea who would be attending the meeting from the Trump side) that will hear the pitch and hope they don't say something.

    Maybe triple is actually the head of the gru and came up with this plan.

    • Fuck You 4
  10. 20 hours ago, Bozo_Casanova said:


    Jesus. This is so wrong.

    I’ll try to put this in terms you can understand, as it was put to a large national meeting of banking and financial services executives by Gen. Michael Hayden a few months ago. I happened to be in the room.

    There is a “big kids table” of powerful, prosperous, stable nations. The United States is at the table. The big European powers of Germany and France sit at that table. So does the UK, Japan, China, Canada and others.

    Russia does not have a seat. Her economic power and political influence are shrinking, and her politics are becoming less stable and certain. Russia sits at the little kids table.

    Russia can’t join the big kids table as long as it is ruled by a kleptocratic oligarchy and has such a limited economic base. So each night, Putin goes around to the big kids table and saws just a little bit off the legs of the chairs. Not to elevate Russia, but to bring powerful, stable countries down to its level. Thus, Russia’s reputation is enhanced by bending the direction of great nations towards itself. It’s not only an advantage for people to think they did it; its essential to the strategy.

    A few things here.  I have read a bit of Hayden's stuff and I think he is pretty smart and pretty accurate.  I agree with the bulk of what you wrote about Russia wanting greater global respect and a seat at the big table.  I even agree that what you said about Russia wanting people to "think they did it" is true.

    But there is a massive distinction between wanting people to suspect you are behind something and having people know you are behind something.  If someone is messing with me and I suspect I know who it is but I can do nothing to prove it, then I am vulnerable to them and I have to take them seriously.  They have shown that they can mess with me and suffer no consequences.  I can not retaliate against them because I have no proof.  However, if I catch them red handed and have the facts to back it up, then I can go after them as hard as I want.

    Hayden has said the exact same thing.  He has said that Russia hacking information from the US like the DNC hack was "artful" and something we would do to if we could.  he said Russia could use that info to better understand how we think and then use that knowledge to continue to sow discord.  However, he has said that when Russia made the emails public via wiki that it was a huge mistake because it now exposed Russia as the culprit and galvanised the countries at the big table against Russia.  

    Russia, in no way, wanted to get caught in the election meddling.  Everything that they hoped to gain from the meddling (increased global presence, respect, power, chaos etc) they have actually lost because they got caught.  They now suffer from increased financial sanctions imposed by both the US and the EU.   The EU is openly investing billions in order to get away from independence on Russian energy.  Russia struggles to find trading partners and it is only getting worse.  Current sanctions are crippling Russia's economy.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2018/08/06/heres-how-we-know-sanctions-against-russia-are-working/?utm_term=.423de6aeaf84

    https://www.ft.com/content/cad69cf4-3e40-11e8-bcc8-cebcb81f1f90

    As it stands now, the fact that Russia has been caught has effectively ended any chance Russia has of sitting at the big table.  

    All of which goes back to what I have suggested.  I have zero doubts that Russia meddled in the elections.  I have little doubt that Russia wanted anyone but Hillary so they tried to help Bernie and then they tried to help Trump.  What I believe is that there was no collusion/conspiracy between the Russians and Trump co.  The Trump Tower meeting is a perfect example.  Either Trump co was compromised before the meeting or not.  If they were already compromised, then a meeting like that would be monumentally stupid.  If they were not compromised, then attempting to compromise them in that way would be equally monumentally stupid.  

    • Fuck You 1
  11. 27 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

    The Russians want chaos.  They want to undermine NATO.  They want the American public not to trust its various institutions, political and otherwise.

    If there are shenanigans going on to undermine the electoral process, you can't make the American public lose faith in the electoral process if they never find out about said shenanigans.

    The fact that it's the Republicans, and not the commie libtards, that are cozy with the Russians, makes the shenanigans all the more powerful and effective.

    Look at Butina.  There is a reason why she was all over the place, all over social media.

    This just does not make any sense.  When you describe what Russia wants I assume that includes what Putin wants.  What benefit is it to Russia for the world to find out they undermined the electoral process in our elections?  All that has resulted is additional financial sanctions on Russia, additional mistrust of Russia by the rest of the world, Germany publicly announcing they will move away from dependence on Russian gas, Brittain hitting them with sanctions etc.  

    When Russia annexed Crimea and got involved in the Uraine, much of the world imposed sanctions on them but some did not.  Russia was royally pissed and their economy suffered greatly.  Do you think it is more or less likely that sanctions would continue or get stronger if the world found out that Russia is actively trying to undermine all of their elections?

    I will glady admit that Russia enjoys stirring up chaos.  But it is absolutely illogical to think that Russia wants the world to know that they are behind the chaos.  How does that help them at all?  It just causes the rest of the world to distrust them more and makes the rest of the world willing to impose sanctions on them.  

  12. 19 minutes ago, Ted Lange said:

    This didn’t age well.

    Really?  You still think something will come out of this meeting?  Based on what?  Did you actually read the transcripts?

    As usual you guys are so focused on gotcha that you just make yourselves look like fools.  

    No one has ever said that the genesis of the meeting was not to get possible dirt on Hillary.  What everyone has said is that at the actual meeting, there was no dirt shared or offerred about Hillary and that the meeting went straight to Magnisky Act stuff and adoptions.  This is supported by the testimony of every participant in the meeting.  What do you expect Mueller to do with this?

    Trump Jr. made an on the record statement back in July of 2017 saying the initial request for the meeting was to get possible dirt on Hillary.  This has been out there for a long time.  If you guys can find one single quote from Trump that indicates that he said the intent or genesis of the meeting was about adoptions then you might catch him in a lie.  Trump has only commented previously about the actual meeting and what went on.  

    I would love for any one of you to come up with a theory of how this meeting will hurt Trump with Mueller.

    It is alo still so funny to me that none of you can make any kind of answer out of the following:

    If Trump and co have been compromised by Putin for so long through shady financial dealings and a dossier of blackmail material and direct ownership of Manafort and possibly Flynn and all of that that you guys apparently believe, then why would Putin reach out to Trump via an email that every intelligence guy in both Russia and the US knows will likely be captured from some unknown agent like Goldstone?  Why have them waltz into Trump Tower on various cameras?  It is the most illogical thing ever.  Why reach out to some underlings like Papa and Page?  

    I don't think any of you can actually articulate what you actually think happened anymore.  It is just Trump and everyone around him is a traitor.  And it is based on exactly no credible public evidence.  None.  It is just Trump is going down and Mueller will get him.

    I have posted 100s of times that I fully support Mueller and will be one of the first in line to call for impeachments if there is evidence that Trump committed crimes.  I have said that TRump should be impeached if he fired Mueller.  I like Rod Rosenstein.  I suspect that the vast majority of you will not accept the Mueller findings.  

     

     

     

    • Like 1
    • Fuck You 1
  13. 18 hours ago, Mojo Hand said:

    No, his usage makes sense.  Yours was an obvious mistake from a troll with multiple socks.  But it's so telling that you are desperate to seize on something like this 6 weeks after outing yourself. 

    lulz.  Was a joke.  Get a life.  Still have not shown I have any socks because I don't.  But keep it up.

  14. 4 hours ago, Tuco said:

    As I understand it, it's a question of time frames.  When the Russian/Ukrainian money was flowing in, he was evading taxes and funneling business revenue for personal income, without declaring it.  After the Russian/Ukrainian money stopped flowing, he was lying to banks to get loans, so he could still spending money.  I wouldn't imagine that's too difficult of a narrative to explain, but I haven't been directly following the trial.   

    I think this is largely correct with a few caveats.  I think Manafort had a short term cash flow issue and needed to collect money from the Uks.  So he wanted loans to bridge the gap.  I think this because some of the potentially fraudulent loans have been paid back.  I have to believe that the feds have him pretty cold as it would be unusual to bring the case without pretty iron clad evidence.

    It is an interesting case.  He was really playing fast and loose with loans and income etc.  I am having a hard time coming up with a plausible defense for him but he must have something.  I do not see how blaming Gates will be a winner without some paper trail we do not know about.  I could see him trying to play a semantics game on the foreign accounts.  I suppose he could argue that he understood the disclosure rule to be foreign accounts in his personal name versus business accounts that he controlled.  It is also not illegal or uncommon for individuals to take out loans from their businesses.  It does need to be well papered though and sounds like his was not.  But you can take loans from your business and not pay any taxes.  You can also then declare the loan forgiven but then have to report the full amount of the loan as income but could time it to a year when you had losses to off set it or a surplus of cash.

    The bank fraud aspect is more interesting.  Typically, these cases come when someone stops paying the banks back.  As far as I know, he is not delinquent in his loans.  Obviously does not justify falsifying docs but it is unusual.  Especially if it is true that the loans are heavily collateralized and at market rates or above.  My experience is that bankers get pretty easy with some of the regulations and paperwork when there is substantial collateral to cover the loan.  

    It is also interesting that usually tax fraud like this gets uncovered when people either do not file or really file low.  According to what I have seen, Manafort did declare $5-$6M in earnings on his return so he definitely paid some taxes.

    It will be interesting to see his defense.  I think right now it is at least 95% that he is going down.

  15. 11 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

    It astounds me how easy it is for you to start with a very basic yet flawed premise and then run with it to conclusions that just happen to fit your narrative.

     

     

     

    Pay your taxes

    You realize that what you posted has nothing to do with what I actually typed right?  I have no narrative.  I said I thought Manafort was guilty already.  I am working a hypothetical.

    Businesses set up corps in foreign countries all of the time.  US citizens are required to pay taxes on all income that they earn PERSONALLY wherever they reside.  Foreign corps that do business in foreign countries are not subject to US income tax even if owned by US citizens.  A US citizen could set up a business in Cypress and start selling stuff to Germany for millions of dollars and there is not tax due on anything in the US that is not paid to the US citizen personally.

  16. Been interesting so far.  It is obviously early, but the prosecutors haven't actually pointed out any crimes yet.  I am assuming they are setting up the lavish lifestyle so that they can then show how much income was reported on tax returns and there wont be enough.  

    Got me to thinking about something that may not have anything to do with this particular case but is tangential.  If a person sets up a corp in a foreign country and then does work under that company and the money is paid to the corp in the foreign country, I do not think that money would be subject to US taxation.  Now any amounts that were transferred to the US would certainly be subject to taxation.  What I do not know is what happens to purchases made from that foreign account for the benefit of that corp.  For instance, if the corp had $5M in income then it should pay taxes on that income in the foreign country.  But if that corp then buys real estate in the US, and the real estate is owned by the corp that is based in a foreign country, I am not sure there is any kind of tax due other than property tax.  It would be complicated, but in theory, a person that earned significant income from outside of the US, could have their foreign corp own all of their assets (houses, cars, jewelry, furniture, art etc) and then "pay"themselves a nominal amount from the corp and then pay taxes on that amount only and be perfectly legal.

  17. 10 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

    You're confused because they both have the word balance, but a national trade balance shares nothing in common with a corporate balance sheet. 

    LOL.  Thanks for the tip Einstein.  I am not confused about anything.  We are using an overly simplified example to make a point.

     

    21 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

    You also underestimate, or simply dont know, the value of a trade deficit when it comes to maintaining the dollar as the primary global reserve currency. We arent buying Chinese goods with yuan.

    This is getting way in the financial weeds and I have zero interest in debating it with you.  There are a myriad of things that maintain the dollar as the reserve currency.  

  18. 53 minutes ago, Foosters said:

    Not necessarily. Prosecution has to offer a deal for him to take it.

    Of course.  I was just commenting that deals are still offered during trial. If the prosecution appears to be winning then the deals get worse for Manafort or there are none at all.  If Manafort's team comes up with some out of nowhere point then the deal might get better.  

    I do not think Manafort has anything to offer.  Based solely on what we know (which isnt much) I see no reason for the feds to offer him any kind of good deal.  I think their case is probably pretty tight.  

  19. 4 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

    What? The company is not selling them in Hong Kong. There is nothing cancelling out the trade deficit with Hong Kong.

    No shit.  You are selling them to someone else.  You will have a NET surplus trade position.  It is entirely normal and customary to have different trade positions with different people.

    If the US has a $100B trade deficit with China but a $200B trade surplus with everyone else then we do not have a problem.  But we do not.  We have a massive NET trade deficit that is unsustainable.

    In the example above the company will have a trade deficit with Hong Kong.  In this example we are using, virtually every business will have a trade deficit with their suppliers, (unless there is some weird contract where suppliers buy back finished goods) they have to.  But they then sell the manufactured goods to other people and they will have trade surpluses with those people and the net position will be a surplus.

  20. 3 minutes ago, Royalfan5 said:

    It’s not that hard for a journalist to find people to say what they want them to say. 

    Pos rep.  This point is so badly understood by the masses that it is comical.  

  21. 6 hours ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

    Are you really this stupid or is it an act?

    I pay a million bucks for some gizmo from Hong Kong that makes rubber dogshit.  I manufacture and sell two million dollars worth of rubber dog shit here in America. My company is in the black by a million bucks but we have a million dollar trade deficit. The trade deficit means fuck all in this case. 

    Calling out someone for being stupid and not understanding the issue is a bold strategy.  You clearly have exactly no idea what we are discussing.

    In your scenario above, why in the hell would you say that your company has a "million dollar trade deficit" after being in the black?  You do understand that when you manufacture and sell your rubber dogshit that you are entering into a trade surplus right?  That is the whole point you dumbass.  It is ok to have trade deficits when you are growing or are positioning yourself for future growth.  Your company has a trade deficit in year 1 when you buy the million dollar gizmo.  You spent more money bringing in goods than you made selling them.  But when you start selling the dog shit in years 2 and 3 and making a profit your company now has a trade surplus.  You are selling more items than you are buying and making a profit.  

     

     

  22. 3 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

    It's surprising that Manafort hasn't accepted a plea, assuming one has been offered.    the guy is almost 70 and from all appearances loves the good life.   Offer him a way of keeping his freedom and a decent amount of wealth, and I would think he would plead to killing JFK.      If I was his age and had even a small chance of being convicted, I wouldn't want to risk a big chunk, if not all, of my remaining life behind bars.  Even if I felt I was 100% innocent, it's a risk to take it to trial.

    then again, perhaps there wasn't a plea offered that kept him out of prison.  

     

    I suspect Manafort will get convicted.  He can always take a deal at any point before sentencing.  Obviously the deal gets worse for him as time goes on.

     

  23. 14 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

    Really? I can think of something more pathetic — posting under multiple socks, and then using them to defend and rep each other as if different people agreed with your awesome point. 

    LOL that it took you a month to come up with that bullshit.   And IP tracking doesn't work anymore, in the age of VPNs, but you know that.  Get the fuck out of here with that. 

    lulz.  There was a time when I thought you were a fairly smart guy.  Feel free to look up everyone who has ever repped me (it certainly will not take too long) and let us know who the socks are.  It is amazing that people exist that absolutely believe something based on zero actual knowledge.  

    • Fuck You 3
×
×
  • Create New...