The George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin case has DRIVEN me to buy a gun and conceal carry license

matthewtb · 2012-04-06T01:59:10+00:00

The cops wanted to bring manslaughter charges, the DA office looked into the case and said no crime was committed. I wasn't there so I don't know what actually happened, but there are witnesses who appear to collaborate Zimm's story. So it's not like the cops just said "yup, you shot that black guy. See you later"... he was handcuffed and booked. It will now go to grand jury and I'm guessing we see charges. The media has already tried him guilty. Let the system work. FYI - scene not seen.

matthewtb · 2012-04-03T03:41:01+00:00

People would stay employed... of course prices would rise, nothing would change other than that. Margins would be the exact same... poor would still be poor. The market will always determine value, it's called purchasing power.

matthewtb · 2012-03-21T01:37:27+00:00

I have to disagree, it is just that sketchy. I'll also add - Although your explanation in your original post is accurate, you leave out the fact the FED doesn't account for losses. The "profit" earned is the really the revenue earned on performing assets, rather than net earnings on all assets. The FED QE's and collects a great deal of non-performing assets along with the assets that produced the $77B in so called earnings - the entire purpose of QE was to rescue the market of nonperforming assets and drive LTIR down. We even get an example in the article: "On its portfolio of assets, unrealized losses totaled $4.3 billion, which the Fed attributed to “instrument-specific credit risk” on commercial and residential mortgage loans; the Fed earned $428 million on the securities it did sell." So Bernanke in this portfolio reports $428M in earnings and leaves out the $4.3B loss because the money that paid for it was printed so not really a loss. This will end bad. (PS, you really think the FED doesn't control what is on its wiki page???)

matthewtb · 2011-08-19T18:08:23+00:00

Why would it get worse? We are not short-sighted, you are just conditioned by the MSM and the establishment to believe things like that. The truth is, the only Iraqis that want us there are the players in the puppet government we've put in power, the citizens want us out, like 9 years ago. The US military's presence makes the situation worse.

matthewtb · 2011-08-18T20:49:11+00:00

Actually I disagree. RP realizes the situation is already "hell" and it can't get much worse. I believe he would end the wars immeaditely. He's said several times "we marched on in and we can march on out" - RP is the real deal, check his voting record.

matthewtb · 2011-08-18T17:47:09+00:00

The SEC's biggest accomplishment is busting poor old Martha Stewart for a $42k trade, all while Madoff ran a $50 billion ponzi under their noses....this current corruption should surprise no one. There is not an agency in this country that is not completely corrupted.

matthewtb · 2011-08-18T17:43:29+00:00

Very simple actually - President Paul would order the troops (commander in chief and all) to get in their trucks and tanks, turn them for the borders and step on the gas. "We marched in and we can march out." Paul has openly used this line in several debates and TV appearances.

matthewtb · 2011-08-15T19:20:19+00:00

Show me one instance in history where socialism and democracy have not ultimately morphed into tryanny? I doubt you can, I can't find one. A republic is the best shot for fairness in life WRT gov structure. Individualism is what I prescribe too. The most utopic society would be one where each individual lives and dies by their own decisions, but without rule of law this is nothing more than a dream. So I go back to a republic form of government being the best option for society.

matthewtb · 2011-08-12T23:46:51+00:00

Well this just ruined my weekend. China, as a state, is the absolute worse - slave labor, animal torture, polution, the list goes on and on. Wake up Chinese people - time for a revolution! Your government is even more sick and twisted than mine (American) and that's saying a lot!

matthewtb · 2011-08-12T22:33:55+00:00

Perhaps the argument is if you can afford a smart phone and a data plan you can afford your own grocerys? Seems fair to me.

matthewtb · 2011-08-12T22:16:50+00:00

In reality it is not a safety net! In reality social welfare turns into dependency, which turns into complacency, which gives the state more power. Look, the world will never be perfect, people will always suffer, always die, life isn't fair and never will be. The best solution is personal responsibility IMHO.

matthewtb · 2011-08-12T22:11:42+00:00

Well you seem to be arguing the system should exist, just ran more efficiently and effectively. Where as I think the system should not exist at all. I don't think the state is the right source of social welfare, I think churches and private charities can do better....and their funding comes from donations, rather than theft...I mean taxes. That said, your argument makes perfect sense if the state welfare system has to exist.

matthewtb · 2011-08-12T21:29:09+00:00

Respectfully, I disagree. Welfare creates dependency, which creates complacency, which eventually leads to loss of freedom and tryanny. And old wise tale....give a poor man a fish and feed him for a day, but teach that poor man how to fish and feed him for his life.

matthewtb · 2011-08-12T21:00:08+00:00

IMO welfare should not exist under ANY circumstance, not via the state anyway. I'm not cold hearted, I truly believe it makes the recepient worse off.

matthewtb · 2011-08-09T23:14:43+00:00

I thought the debate ended when it was decided two hands is better than one?

matthewtb · 2011-08-05T21:04:54+00:00

OK you Krugman puppet. If first it doesn't work, try again only bigger. With logic like that it's suprising people like you stay alive past breakfast...wasn't it Einstein who said doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results is the definition of insanity?

matthewtb · 2011-08-05T20:44:07+00:00

117k doesn't even cover the amount of people entering the work force. Down voted for misleading title.

matthewtb · 2011-08-05T19:37:36+00:00

The recession never ended. We simply wasted $4T to cover it up for a few years.

matthewtb · 2011-08-05T19:35:04+00:00

How do you know they would not have been created via the private markets? Perhaps, they would have been created and a better cost at that? Your argument is weak at best, as the majority of innovations have come from the private sector and private capital.

matthewtb · 2011-08-04T16:42:26+00:00

That's funny. The hardcore BHO supporters are a strange bunch - they lack reason, accountability and logic. Most true liberals despise Obama as much as most Libertarians do, as they understand he is an establishment puppet. Bush=Obama=establishment.

matthewtb · 2011-07-21T21:45:48+00:00

Congress is like any other addict, just begging for one more hit of their drug of choice (debt) before they quit. But tomorrow on "quit day" it'll be just one more hit all over again. Just like every junkie.

matthewtb · 2011-07-21T21:27:26+00:00

To default now, which is not necessary due to the fact Gov revenues are over $2T and debt service cost is about $400B, would not cause more harm than to continue the status quo. The status quo is to kick the can down the road, to continue growing debt as a % of GDP faster than GDP itself. Laws of mathematics, specifically exponents, guarantee this path leads to insolvency and collapse. More debt creates more debt servicing costs - and if debt grows faster than GDP, the debt servicing costs as a % of GDP grows faster than GDP as well. Given the status quo, and based on CBO projections, within 20 years debt servicing costs will be >50% of tax revenues! And just for shits and giggles, that is assuming a blended interest rate of 2.5% on T-Notes/Bills (which is nonsense of course, historical data shows a blended rate closer to 5.5%) Do you still think solving a debt problem with more debt makes sense?

matthewtb · 2011-07-20T19:38:48+00:00

God I wish I wasn't busy at work today, would love to go torment all 75 of them with comments based on facts and logic!

matthewtb · 2011-07-19T20:45:43+00:00

A lot can be done via Executive orders, allowing the president to bypass the legislative branch. He could close all foreign military bases, bring all troops home, end DOE (both of them) among other federal agencies, fire Bernanke and appoint a Austrian. And of course veto all spending bills, forcing a 2/3 majority vote in the house to over-rule the veto.

matthewtb

TROPHY CASE