Crap Throwing Monkey
-
Posts
9,499 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Crap Throwing Monkey
-
-
Q: How many Bulletin Board posters does it take to change a light bulb?
A: 88
1 to change the light bulb and to post to the BB that the light bulb has been changed
8 to share similar experiences of changing light bulbs and how the light bulb could have been changed differently
5 to caution about the dangers of changing light bulbs
7 to point out spelling/grammar errors in posts about changing light bulbs.
3 to flame the spell checkers
4 to write to the BB administrator complaining about the light bulb discussion and its inappropriateness to this BB
6 to correct spelling in the spelling/grammar flames
9 to post that this BB is not about light bulbs and to please take this exchange to the Light Bulb BB
5 to defend the posting to this BB saying that we all use light bulbs and therefore the posts **are** relevant to this BB
12 to debate which method of changing light bulbs is superior, where to buy the best light bulbs, what brand of light bulbs work best for this technique, and what brands are faulty
8 to post URLs where one can see examples of different light bulbs
10 to post that the URLs were posted incorrectly and to post corrected URLs
3 to post about links they found from the URLs that are relevant to this BB which makes light bulbs relevant to this BB
2 to post to the BB that they are leaving because they cannot handle the light bulb controversy
4 to suggest that posters request the light bulb FAQ
1 to bump the light bulb thread in 6 months and start the whole thing over again
You forgot the 3 that argue that the light bulb didn't need to be changed, the 5 that argue that the light bulb you left on the shelf is better than the one you put in, and the 1 th threaten a spearing contest...
-
He's right about those eyes, though. Never seen that deep a color green...
-
You're celebrating the fact that the DOW's at a new high. I pointed out that it took 6 years to do that. I am happy that it finally did, especially for my pension. I am unhappy though that it took so long to get back to this point. You inferred I blame Bush. However, I've never disagreed with the fact that presidents have very little control over the economy.
Sorry I pushed the Clinton button...
Yeah. Because stock markets should always go up and hit consecutive new highs. They should never, ever, ever go down.
You really don't understand market economics, do you?
-
God damn that is some perverted sh-- that they are conversating about.
I wouldn't say i am shocked, because this kind of thing has happened before, just not with someone hitting on a little boy.
This paints a dark picture of America, and it is not the kind of thing that makes us look good with forgein policy or any other field which we try to dominate. The questions that this begs is what other type of perverted sh-- is going on that both parties are sitting on? And what should we do about it?
If it were up to me, i would say some kind of serious political reformation must be done. We have at least one fat cat who sits in a respectable position, by having the free world in his hands, but turns it down only to be replaced by a teenage boy, who knows what others are doing.
People say that this makes conservatives look bad. It does. But i think it makes Democrats look equally as bad the same way it made conservatives look bad when Bill Clinton was involved with Monica Lewinski. There is a growing distrust in government from where i sit, and this type of news does not make either major political party look desirable. Just a bunch of people who we look to to guide this country, but instead of looking out for the people they are looking to fill desires that do not interest anyone but themselves.
If a politician has never gotten involved with molestation or sexual activity while in office, they are all involved with scandals in one way or another. So before people go pointing fingers as to who looks worse, Democrats or Republicans, it is the American people who look like garbage, sinners, and infadels as a result of bull sh-- like this.
"Little boy"? Sixteen year olds may be minors*, but they are NOT "little boys".
*And in this case, the stupid-ass conflicting federal statues aren't even clear that 16 year olds ARE minors.
-
-
I'm sorry...I like the Packers, I really do, but...
Trade up to take a punter in the third round, who doesn't even last two years. 
-
By the way...which union? It's not NEA or AFT affiliated, is it?
-
Boy you guys sure like to stretch my arguments...
I never said I didn't know the components of the GSCI. I actually went to the GS web site and found and posted the information on how they determine the weights--and their site has all of the components and weights listed. Maybe I wasn't clear enough. I did state that market forces were aligned to push prices lower, but this particular "adjustment" also helped speed the process, especially after other market players found out about the adjustment.
The article from the Times (did you read it?) is an objective business piece much like you'd find in the WSJ. There are no hints of conspiracy there (the blogger link, yes). The article, quoting industry traders and GS announcements, makes the case that this readjustment helped reduce unleaded gas prices. Based on the GS web site and their own words on how they determine the weights, the change they made in August is inconsistent with their explanation of how the weights are determined. Google GSCI and you can find the gold sach's link.
But of course, your usual counter-argument is that it's a NYT article. Gee, how can anyone argue against that point. It does serve you well though...
Yes, I read the article from the Times. And my complaint isn't that it's an article from the Times, my complaint is that it's an incomplete article. And misleading. It overstates the weighting reduction of gasoline by half (because, while they reduced unleaded gasoline, they added reformulated gasoline to the index, which is in part offsetting), and doesn't even begin to mention that the weighting of oil was increased by about 50%...
...yet, oil's dropped 20% over the same time that Goldman-Sachs has driven down the price of oil [sic]. One would expect, if GS reducing the relative importance of unleaded gasoline futures in the GSCI depressed gasoilne prices, that doing the opposite would have an opposite effect - namely, that increasing the relagive weight of oil futures would increase oil prices. Clearly, this is not the effect. Ergo, your argument is specious.
-
Ditto. Particularly when senior management goes right for the throat like that. Every time I've seen that happen (and the once it's happened to me), it's been someone pursuing a vendetta. I'd get your resume polished, and talk to your union about what to do if there's any further actions against you.
-
-
-
-
-
You know, the shooter in Amish country wanted to molest young girls, too. That seems awfully coincidental, coming on top of the Foley story, coming so soon before elections.
He was probably a Democratic operative...
-
-
My biggest question is: why is it on before 5pm tomorrow?
"Less than 24 hours?"
-
-
-
-
-
-
Yes, I was thinking about looking into that. Unfortunately, the article in the NYT doesn't state how they reallocated their weights. It did say "to other commodities," so they didn't pile it all into one area. And if market participants knew which areas, they would've been smart to jump on those futures too, creating the effect you mention. So your knowledge of the reweighting of the GSCI is based on a single NYT article written six weeks after the reweighting?
If you don't even know the components of the GSCI, but claim to know that the readjustment of a single component of the GSCI adversely affected a single commodity market, I'd have to consider your hypothesis specious, at best.
-
Once again, so far, in the hundreds of news articles on this story, none have found a link to the Dems. Not saying there isn't one there. But, as of right now no one is reporting Dem involvement. If any Dem does surface with the type of knowledge that Hastert and the rest had, then I would just as vigorously call for their resignations as well.
"Hastert and the rest".
The implicit assumption that knowledge of Foley must be distributed along party lines is disgusting. Nothing more than the same lascivious attempt to play party politics with the issue that so many of us have been complaining about to begin with.Business as usual in the GOP...
-
Frankly, the story is too salacious to believe that if the Dems knew they would be able to stop their giddiness this long and wait to use it at the right time.
True, that. Though there is the "What happens in our club, stays in our club" factor. There's enough skeletons in enough closets on the Hill that more than a few people would worry "If this story about X gets out, will my dirty little secret go public, too?"
I would expect any day now to see reprisal "leaks" on Democratic members of Congress.
It's hard to keep a story like this "institutionalized" within a small group with high turnover, like Congressional pages. For the pages to keep it secret from year to year, but keep the new pages aware each year, it would have to be a really open secret...enough so that everyone knew.
Foley's IMs
in Politics, Polls, and Pundits
Posted
The age of consent is 16 in DC. It's 18 in Florida, so if he sent even one email from Florida, he's rightfully !@#$ed. But by federal law, it's 16 (Title 19, Section 109A) unless you're soliciting via the internet, in which case it's 18 (HR 4472), and you have to go into the federal sex offenders registry.
The federal law in this case is SO stupid, I can't even begin to explain it. Basically, Foley's violating federal law by emailing the pages, but had he actually molested them...well, that would have been legal, but he still has to admit to the federal government that he commited a crime, even though he didn't.
That's probably why the FBI is still "investigating" Foley but hasn't arrested him yet: no one can figure out if what he did was actually a crime or not. The applicable federal law is !@#$ed up beyond belief.