Board 8 > John McCain is literally out of his mind

(+) Yeah! (+)

http://www.glennbeck.com/2011/07/28/mccain-lashes-out-at-tea-party-stu-loses-his-mind/

Great reaction from Stu though (best part is about four minutes in).

Anyway, my official prediction is that McCain will "retire" before his next re-election, which is code for "I know I can't win because I am a complete sell-out who stands for nothing"

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized
http://img.imgcake.com/lolkrugmanjpgry.jpg

yeah nothing to do with the fact that he'll be 78-79 in 2016.

--
Warning_Crazy
i am not black turtle as i did not win the guru

The Republican House that failed to raise the debt ceiling would somehow escape all blame. Then Democrats would have no choice but to pass a balanced-budget amendment and reform entitlements, and the tea-party Hobbits could return to Middle Earth having defeated Mordor.

john mccain best politician ever.

This is the kind of crack political thinking that turned Sharron Angle and Christine O’Donnell into GOP Senate nominees.

This is actually a salient point on his part. I mean, there is no denying the energy the tea party puts into the party, but as a whole they are terrible at looking at demographics.

These are two seats that they absolutely threw away by going too far right.

--
Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

I heard about McCain saying this. I thought to myself "this guy actually has a grasp on reality!" Kind of funny how Republicans hate him now because of losing the presidential election, even though he really was the best candidate at the time and there was not a single Republican who could've won that election.

is that beck cosplaying to the left

--
Fast Falcon ate my bracket for dinner in the guru contest.

The Tea Party representatives in Congress are out of their minds.

--
90s games > 00s games

The Tea Party representatives in Congress are out of their minds.

The Tea Party representatives managed to do something John McCain has never done. Win an election despite actually standing for solid conservative principles.

This is actually a salient point on his part. I mean, there is no denying the energy the tea party puts into the party, but as a whole they are terrible at looking at demographics.

This is a salient point... if you're a GOP stooge who cares only about winning elections but not actually standing for principles that will save the country. Personally, I couldn't care less who "takes the blame" for all this debt ceiling stuff. I have no vested interest in the Republican party. I don't care if they get blamed. I care that the country starts behaving responsibly by balancing the goddamn budget. I will vote for politicians who attempt to do that, regardless of "demographics" or "who takes the blame" or whatever.

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized
http://img.imgcake.com/lolkrugmanjpgry.jpg

The Tea Party representatives managed to do something John McCain has never done. Win an election despite actually standing for solid conservative principles.

That would be because John McCain doesn't believe in solid conservative principles. And I don't like John McCain.

--
90s games > 00s games

The Tea Party isn't going to balance the budget though, they're going to default! The whole point of balancing the budget is so we don't default.

--
90s games > 00s games

The Tea Party isn't going to balance the budget though, they're going to default! The whole point of balancing the budget is so we don't default.

This makes literally no sense. Is your last name McCain.

First of all, a raise in the debt ceiling does not require default. We can easily cover interest payments on the debt, social security payments, veterans affairs, and military spending without raising the debt ceiling.

Second of all, none of the plans debated by Congress (except Cut, Cap, and Balance, which every single Democrat in the Senate voted against come even close to balancing the budget. They don't even reduce the deficit. I want to be clear on this because you will NEVER hear it in the mainstream media. Hell, you rarely even hear it on FOX News.

All of the "cuts" they are referring to in these plans are cuts on "projected future spending" which is dramatically increasing.

Only in Washington DC can someone spend more in one year then they did the previous year while congratulating themselves for "cutting spending."

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized
http://img.imgcake.com/lolkrugmanjpgry.jpg

This is a salient point... if you're a GOP stooge who cares only about winning elections but not actually standing for principles that will save the country.

Good luck supporting candidates too far right for their district while the yell at things from a sidewalk, because that's the only public forum they're going to have.

--
Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

Good luck supporting candidates too far right for their district while the yell at things from a sidewalk, because that's the only public forum they're going to have.

If the media continues to ignore candidates who have legitimate solutions, they are digging their own graves.

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized
http://img.imgcake.com/lolkrugmanjpgry.jpg

I'm curious, SMuffin: you talk about politics all the time, have very bold/strong/vitriolic opinions, and are willing to jeopardize your good relations with people in order to prove a point. So do you plan on doing something with all this energy, or are you happy knowing that your political opinions will never make a difference?

--
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBpfwpOPXNc&NR=1&feature=fvwp
~Pinkie Pie is the best pony~

The government will have to stop paying 40% of its obligations. It probably wouldn't be a technical default on bonds, but it would still have a ruinous impact on the economy. Ready for another stock market collapse?

--
90s games > 00s games

So do you plan on doing something with all this energy, or are you happy knowing that your political opinions will never make a difference?

I am doing something.

The government will have to stop paying 40% of its obligations. It probably wouldn't be a technical default on bonds, but it would still have a ruinous impact on the economy. Ready for another stock market collapse?

Yes. I could use another good buying opportunity.

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized
http://img.imgcake.com/lolkrugmanjpgry.jpg

I am doing something.

You're trying (and failing) to proselytize apathetic people on a video game message board. I suppose people have different standards for "making a difference," but that's a little... low, don't you think?

--
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBpfwpOPXNc&NR=1&feature=fvwp
~Pinkie Pie is the best pony~

Yes. I could use another good buying opportunity.

I'm sure current shareholders don't think so.

--
90s games > 00s games

From: BoshStrikesBack | #017
I am doing something.

You're trying (and failing) to proselytize apathetic people on a video game message board. I suppose people have different standards for "making a difference," but that's a little... low, don't you think?

He didn't say he was making a difference. He said he was doing something.

I'm curious, SMuffin: you talk about politics all the time, have very bold/strong/vitriolic opinions, and are willing to jeopardize your good relations with people in order to prove a point. So do you plan on doing something with all this energy, or are you happy knowing that your political opinions will never make a difference?

It doesn't really matter what he does; it doesn't impact his argument either way. Further, SmartMuffin already makes a bigger difference than the vast majority of us politically just by posting here.

--
90s games > 00s games

by difference you mean giving us laughs

smuffin is my favorite kind of human being, the one who isn't dishonest about how much of a terrible person he is.

--
Coincidence that a self-avowed Communist is so against democracy and traditional marriage? - SephG after misquoting me hilariously

It doesn't really matter what he does; it doesn't impact his argument either way.

In case you didn't pick up on it, I was ignoring his argument in favor of analyzing his motivations.

Further, SmartMuffin already makes a bigger difference than the vast majority of us politically just by posting here.

Does he? Even if "having B8 political discussions" constitutes making a difference, then it's negligible. And while it might be more than other people on B8, most people here don't spend so much time thinking politics. It's a matter of time invested vs. output produced. I'd ask the same question to those who follow his example, of course: what's the point?

I plan on going into law, myself, so knowing politics is essential. I'm just curious about what's going through SMuffin's head.

--
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBpfwpOPXNc&NR=1&feature=fvwp
~Pinkie Pie is the best pony~

I've explained it clearly a large number of times.

My goal is to use what limited influence I do have to make a difference. I understand that my influence is quite low. But this isn't the only website I visit, nor is the Internet my only outlet.

For the record, there isn't a lot of time invested here. I get most of my information and topics anyway because I'm interested in them. Being fully educated on the issues is my duty as a citizen. I'd do it even if I had NO influence. Making the topics usually takes a few minutes. I can spare a few minutes to try and save you heathens =)

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized
http://img.imgcake.com/lolkrugmanjpgry.jpg

I'm sure current shareholders don't think so.

Then they should probably start moving into cash (or better yet, gold).

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized
http://img.imgcake.com/lolkrugmanjpgry.jpg

Probably Smuffin enjoys discussing politics? You don't have to get a return on an activity that you enjoy doing.

Edit: Convincing even one single person to change their party alignment puts you above average for political influence, because most people are pretty intractable on these things.

--
90s games > 00s games

But this isn't the only website I visit,

where else?

Probably Smuffin enjoys discussing politics? You don't have to get a return on an activity that you enjoy doing.

You're posting on a video game message board; I get that. It's just such a bizarre thing to get so worked up about- and boy, does he get worked up about it. Demonizing men he doesn't understand, asserting his ideological superiority constantly, kicking and screaming about things he can't control... he's like a child.

My goal is to use what limited influence I do have to make a difference. I understand that my influence is quite low. But this isn't the only website I visit, nor is the Internet my only outlet.

Except that this obviously isn't your goal. If you really wanted to persuade people, you'd approach sensitive political issues with more tact and reasonableness. You're no diplomat when it comes to this stuff; you're a firebrand.

For the record, there isn't a lot of time invested here. I get most of my information and topics anyway because I'm interested in them. Being fully educated on the issues is my duty as a citizen.

Well, I'm glad you've been brainwashed, then.

I'd do it even if I had NO influence. Making the topics usually takes a few minutes. I can spare a few minutes to try and save you heathens =)

And this is exactly what I mean. Alright SMuffin, you think that if you want. Feel free to spend your time learning about issues you won't impact, policies you won't change, and prance around with your superiority complex, all the while pretending that you're actually trying to help us. If hypocrisy makes you happy, go for it.

--
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBpfwpOPXNc&NR=1&feature=fvwp
~Pinkie Pie is the best pony~

Then they should probably start moving into cash (or better yet, gold).

If they all do that, the stock market will just crash now, and most of them won't be able to get their money out in time. Why should we sacrifice $5 trillion (no idea how much the fall would actually be, but this seems okay as a hypothetical) in the stock market to avoid raising the debt ceiling? After we lose money from lower tax revenues from the recession that will occur and higher interest rates that we'll have to pay on future debt, we're not even going to save that much money towards the deficit.

--
90s games > 00s games

John McCain is literally out of his mind

Well, yes, I think most people are literally out of their minds. It's called a body.

--
"As the size of an explosion increases, the number of social situations it is incapable of solving approaches zero." -Vaarsuvius, Order of the Stick

where else?

And why should I post that? So Ulti can go harass me there? No thanks!

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized
http://img.imgcake.com/lolkrugmanjpgry.jpg

If they all do that, the stock market will just crash now, and most of them won't be able to get their money out in time. Why should we sacrifice $5 trillion (no idea how much the fall would actually be, but this seems okay as a hypothetical) in the stock market to avoid raising the debt ceiling? After we lose money from lower tax revenues from the recession that will occur and higher interest rates that we'll have to pay on future debt, we're not even going to save that much money towards the deficit.

So, let me get this straight. You're encouraging incredibly irresponsible spending habits by the government simply because it's good for the stock market? Are you SURE you're not a Republican!

Let me ask you this one. What do you think of Jeff Skilling? He was doing his damndest to make sure the stock price stayed high. What an American hero, right?

And what do you mean "recession that would occur"? Hello, are you not paying attention? What do you call what we've been in for the last three years? Do you actually read about economic stats or do you just listen to politicians give press conferences about the "summer of recovery*"

*Note - by "recovery" they mean "everything is actually a lot worse"

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized
http://img.imgcake.com/lolkrugmanjpgry.jpg

The market doesn't think raising the debt ceiling is irresponsible! Just the reverse, the market thinks not raising the debt ceiling is irresponsible. Do you think you know better than the free market?

We've been out of recession since mid-2009, by the economic stats.

--
90s games > 00s games

The market doesn't think raising the debt ceiling is irresponsible! Just the reverse, the market thinks not raising the debt ceiling is irresponsible. Do you think you know better than the free market?

In many cases, Yes, I do. Anyone who doesn't should not own individual stocks. The entire reasoning behind purchasing a stock is saying, "I believe this is worth more than its current market value."

What's actually going on is that many large companies benefit hugely from irresponsible government spending. It's an absolute fact that a balanced budget would be terrible for GE. Most of the Solar sector has been taking a beating over the last week or so due to many European countries cutting their subsidies. Being in favor of the free market doesn't mean favoring the government stealing money from citizens to give it away to some huge corporation. That's not capitalism, that's crony capitalism, or state capitalism, or socialism, or whatever you want to call it.

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized
http://img.imgcake.com/lolkrugmanjpgry.jpg

Just watched Rand Paul on Freedom Watch. He says he considers it a compliment because the hobbits were the good guys and they ended up winning. heh

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized
http://img.imgcake.com/lolkrugmanjpgry.jpg

From: SmartMuffin | #034
Just watched Rand Paul on Freedom Watch. He says he considers it a compliment because the hobbits were the good guys and they ended up winning. heh

I'm pretty sure John McCain isn't calling them hobbits.

He's saying they think they're the hobbits.

--
http://img.imgcake.com/drakeryn/alecjpguz.jpg

In many cases, Yes, I do. Anyone who doesn't should not own individual stocks.

And I would seriously question the wisdom of anyone who does, if they don't have insider information or at least extensive (as in more than others) research. Thinking they are wiser than the free market is a trait common to people who lose at the stock market and communists. There are reasons to buy stock other than believing that one knows better than the market, also. One is that by buying stock, you are risking your capital. People hate hate hate risk, so if you are willing to take on some risk (so others don't) you can also expect to be rewarded for it on average.

As for our debt situation, why are our interest rates still so low? Why do people continue to buy US treasury bonds? Because they think our finances are fine, and that we'll be able to pay them off. Our creditors think our national debt is fine, and they'd be the first to question it if it were not.

--
90s games > 00s games

I read this as "John McClane is literally out of his mind" and thought you were going to post a hilarious video of clips from the Die Hard movies arranged in such a way that it would make the main character seem like he had gone insane.

Needless to say this topic has been a total disappointment for me.

--
chumbucketeer fills cups like double-Ds.
http://img.imgcake.com/chumpngej.png - Art by BIGPUN9999

There are reasons to buy stock other than believing that one knows better than the market, also. One is that by buying stock, you are risking your capital. People hate hate hate risk, so if you are willing to take on some risk (so others don't) you can also expect to be rewarded for it on average.

That doesn't make any sense at all. If you believe the free market is always correct, then you are not risking your capital. If they're correct, the stock would stay exactly where it is. Instead, it moves based on everyone being wrong. Depending on which way they are wrong, it either moves up or down. Remember, the stock market is an exchange, it is based on fair trade, buyers and sellers agreeing on a mutual price, mostly based on their expectations and predictions for the future.

I'll give you an example. Gamestop has recently been showing up all over value screens. It's P/E is incredibly low, meaning it trades very cheaply compared to other companies. The reason is because a lot of people believe digital distribution is going to drive them out of business, despite the fact that they are very profitable right now. If I believe the threat from digital distribution is overstated, and that Gamestop can easily adapt, I should buy its stock. In this case, I am saying the market has it wrong. This is NOT a controversial position, rather it is the basic ****ing tenet of value investing. Have you never heard of Benjamin Graham? He literally wrote the book on this.

As for our debt situation, why are our interest rates still so low?

Because the Fed is keeping them low in a vain attempt to stimulate growth.

Why do people continue to buy US treasury bonds?

They're betting on people like you and John McCain to successfully scare people into agreeing with a cycle of endless deficit spending.

Our creditors think our national debt is fine, and they'd be the first to question it if it were not.

Not true. More and more financial analysts are predicting a downgrade regardless of what deal is passed and when. It's hilarious though that everyone is putting so much stock into these ratings agencies. How soon we forget. These were the same corrupt, useless entities that told us the subprime CDOs were AAA+ rated and presented no foreseeable risk.

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized
http://img.imgcake.com/lolkrugmanjpgry.jpg

Muffin, theres a certain thing thats required for governance. its called cooperation and pragmatism. Something that the current house and tea party republicans sorely lack. Who cares if your ideals are ABSOLUTELY PERFECT if they will literally never be implemented. Instead lets jsut make as much of the government work for us as humanly possible. Lets make government more efficient so we get the most bang for our buck. Lets not just sit here and moan because we dont like the numbers and refuse to do anything responsible. I recognize, as a Ron Paul worshipper, you are basically wishing for this country to return to the 18th century when it lacked infrastructure and industry and had slavery or perhaps to the 1880s when corporations reigned supreme and we all ate rat crap every time we ate meat, but for those of us who aren't Luddites that is a pretty unattractive change. You will never turn back the clock, yet you insist that its the only system that will work.

This lack of pragmatism is why we've been playing chicken with the debt ceiling rather than doing this when the budget wouldve come up naturally. its emotional rather than rational and staking everything on one bet.

Also redsox has a pretty valid point, there is an awful lot of pessimism that is itself bringing the economy down. I heard someone on This week last sunday argue that corporations had the money to hire new people but dot out of fear for new taxes. Theyre literally just hoarding money and not helping the economy recover. This drives down aggregate consumer demand which slows recovery. Be mad, just be mad at everyone or else you look like a hypocrite, i guess is my point there.

--
http://img.imgcake.com/grouchwardsdvpngyj.png
The grouch and the Zangoose.

Normally I don't respond to someone who plays the "conservatives want to return to slavery" card, but this part was just too rich...

but for those of us who aren't Luddites

I don't think you understand that that word means. Here's a refresher.

http://blogs.forbes.com/richardsalsman/2011/06/19/obama-the-luddite-friend-to-labor-unions-enemy-of-job-creators/

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized
http://img.imgcake.com/lolkrugmanjpgry.jpg

I ****ing love mechanized looms.

--
.

That doesn't make any sense at all. If you believe the free market is always correct, then you are not risking your capital. If they're correct, the stock would stay exactly where it is. Instead, it moves based on everyone being wrong. Depending on which way they are wrong, it either moves up or down. Remember, the stock market is an exchange, it is based on fair trade, buyers and sellers agreeing on a mutual price, mostly based on their expectations and predictions for the future.

It's more complicated than that. The free market is not always right, it's just right more often than anyone else is. Stocks are so profitable in the long run because they're risky, because the market (and everyone else) doesn't really know very well where the stock price is going to be in the future. You're not going to take a bigger risk without a higher average return, so whoever sells you a stock is going to have to sell at a discount relative to what he believes to be the true expected value of that stock.

I'll give you an example. Gamestop has recently been showing up all over value screens. It's P/E is incredibly low, meaning it trades very cheaply compared to other companies. The reason is because a lot of people believe digital distribution is going to drive them out of business, despite the fact that they are very profitable right now. If I believe the threat from digital distribution is overstated, and that Gamestop can easily adapt, I should buy its stock. In this case, I am saying the market has it wrong. This is NOT a controversial position, rather it is the basic ****ing tenet of value investing. Have you never heard of Benjamin Graham? He literally wrote the book on this.

Value investing is very widely known. Frankly, though, for the vast majority of people, this idea of outsmarting the market is just stupid. Everyone thinks they're right, but a lot of people have to be wrong, and in the long run rare is the person who can do better than randomly guessing.

Of course, in the long run, randomly guessing will get you a positive return in the stock market, because stocks go up in the long run, because the economy grows, and because stocks are risky. Intentionally making your portfolio more risky will also increase your average return without any need to outsmart the market (this is what those investment banks did, but of course the downside to more risk is.....the risk!).

Not true. More and more financial analysts are predicting a downgrade regardless of what deal is passed and when. It's hilarious though that everyone is putting so much stock into these ratings agencies. How soon we forget. These were the same corrupt, useless entities that told us the subprime CDOs were AAA+ rated and presented no foreseeable risk.

You're correct that financial analysts' ratings are worth very little. As long as the market itself does not move, it is unimportant.

--
90s games > 00s games

You guys are both wrong. It has already been scientifically proven that it is not only difficult, it is impossible for one person to get their chocolate in someone's peanut butter while that person simultaneously gets their peanut butter in the other person's chocolate. One's got to hit the other first, and then that person wins. End of story.

Thanks a lot, Obama.

From: red sox 777 | #042
Of course, in the long run, randomly guessing will get you a positive return in the stock market, because stocks go up in the long run, because the economy grows, and because stocks are risky. Intentionally making your portfolio more risky will also increase your average return without any need to outsmart the market (this is what those investment banks did, but of course the downside to more risk is.....the risk!).

And in the infinite long run, continued random guessing (or any other form or investing) will necessarily make you broke.

--
http://img.imgcake.com/nio/51alecpngpa.png -Nio

And yet your expected returns go to infinity! Isn't math wonderful? You're guaranteed to go broke and your expected return goes to infinity at the same time.

--
90s games > 00s games

SmartMuffin posted...
Normally I don't respond to someone who plays the "conservatives want to return to slavery" card, but this part was just too rich...

but for those of us who aren't Luddites

I don't think you understand that that word means. Here's a refresher.

http://blogs.forbes.com/richardsalsman/2011/06/19/obama-the-luddite-friend-to-labor-unions-enemy-of-job-creators/

I dont generally read articles that resort to name calling in the first sentence.

--
http://i55.tinypic.com/2wqyghw.jpg
edwardsdv

It's more complicated than that. The free market is not always right, it's just right more often than anyone else is. Stocks are so profitable in the long run because they're risky, because the market (and everyone else) doesn't really know very well where the stock price is going to be in the future. You're not going to take a bigger risk without a higher average return, so whoever sells you a stock is going to have to sell at a discount relative to what he believes to be the true expected value of that stock.

This really isn't how it works at all.

It's not a matter of "you have to give a greater return because someone is assuming more risk." That may be well and good for bonds, but stocks totally do NOT work that way.

Stocks are a constant battle between the bulls and the bears, and the current market price represents the current equilibrium between the two. Theoretically, for every person out there, whether they be armchair investor or serious investment banker who thinks that Apple is overvalued, there is one that thinks it undervalued. The retail investors mission is not to try and "outsmart the experts" but rather "pick which experts you think are correct."

You talk about stocks being risky. The reason that they're risky is because the equilibrium, or "market" price is often wrong and is extremely volatile.

Intentionally making your portfolio more risky will also increase your average return without any need to outsmart the market

Uh, come back to me after you've owned a few Chinese micro-caps and we'll see if you still believe this :)

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized
http://img.imgcake.com/lolkrugmanjpgry.jpg

or socialism, or whatever you want to call it.

taking money from the citizens to give to corporations is certainly not socialism, that is for sure.

taking money from the citizens to give to corporations is certainly not socialism, that is for sure.

What if those corporations are, for all practical purposes, owned by the government?

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized
http://img.imgcake.com/lolkrugmanjpgry.jpg

What if that government is, for all practical purposes, owned by those corporations?

--
Coincidence that a self-avowed Communist is so against democracy and traditional marriage? - SephG after misquoting me hilariously