JerrySeinfeld
-
Posts
2,705 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by JerrySeinfeld
-
-
-
No I think both parties basically try to blame each other for everything bad in the world and fling feces at each other like monkeys in the zoo hoping some will stick.
Nah I disagree. It's only the Dems who sell dependency to blacks.
It's tougher to be a republican, because you're not selling goodies like Dems do. In any debate, the deck is always stacked against a republican, because when the stupid dude from the media asks "what are you gonna do about education/health/etc?", Dem guys always have an answer: they're gonna take someone else's money and give you some goodies.
Republicans, on the other hand, believe in freedom. So the republican answer is (or should be), "what am I gonna do? nothing."
When you believe people should take care of themselves, the politics game is always stacked against you. Dems always have something to sell. Republicans are selling independence. Tough sell.
-
don't be too disheartened Jer... bear down and squeeze out one of those electoral college projections that come from your favoured non-liberal media types - I mean, there's a few around - you should check out Karl Rove's lil' effort... you know, Bush's Brain!
haha. I think my guys will lose. But hope is still with me!
As for Bush, the best thing I ever read about him was this:
"If Bush is stupid, how stupid do you have to be to be constantly outsmarted by him."
LOL!
-
no, not at all. As I said, if you focus on the simulation scenario associated with the best estimate climate sensitivity... while using a more globally representative surface temperature dataset, you'll very much appreciate the associated IPCC FAR projection does very well - indeed. It sure highlights the projection capabilities of climate models, hey Jer?... even those early iterations, now decades old; notwithstanding ongoing advances/improvements.
notwithstanding you haven't a clue about anything you reference or anything being presented to you. We've seen your type many times before... you lay down a 'ta da' link, without you having any understanding of what you're presenting, without you actually offering any interpretation of what you're posturing over. You can't argue a single point... any ole fake skeptic denier, like you, can drop links and scurry away.
Aww - you're cute. Silly me. If only I had focussed on the simulation scenario associated with the best estimate climate sensitivity maybe that darn global warming would've happened, and then my life's work of taking core samples from glaciers in Tuktoyuktuk would have been worthwhile after all.
Or wait, that'd be you.
-
ah yes, you've bumbled upon another nugget - the 'no warming since 1998' meme. Jer, is there any chance in hell you might step up and try to substantiate that, hey?
Jer, have a dose of reality with this animated graphic!
Jer... have some more:
Jer... have another:
Speaking of "cherry picking" - convenient how you and you'r buds in the science department picked 1970.
It;s cute how angry these guys are. "2000-2009 is warmest!!!"
Haha. A little touchy? Being warm doesn't a trend make. Just because the world got warmer in the 90's and stayed that way in the Oughts doesn't a trend make. To say nothing of causality. These dudes are grasping at straws. And so are you.
Have you ever considered, even for an instant, that you are wrong?
If you haven't, then you aren't a scientist, you are a religious zealot, which I think we all knew all along.
-
Hey Kalamazoo, I realize that enbridge spewed oil across 40 miles of your state, and then rolled out truckloads of canvas cloth and planted grass over top of it instead of cleaning it up, and theres now 40 miles of oil leaching into the groundwater, and that it's all documented in graphic detail and posted all over youtube, but it's okay to drink the water now. The world is fine. Jerry says so.
Energy is important - no, VITAL.
It's an agreed upon idea that the few may have to suffer from time to time so that the many may thrive.
Oil is the reason our standard of living is as high as it is. People like to decry oil, but oil is seriously the source of so much good in our world. Travel, medicine, warmth...all of this is thanks to oil.
Have you ever driven or walked past a car accident? A fatality? Bloody horrible. Mangled bodies and blood everywhere. It's ugly. But we all, as a society, accept that this will happen. Nobody tries to ban cars because of accidents. Because we accept the cost benefit.
Again, oil is messy stuff. But our lives are all so soooo much better because of it. This is why we accept the odd spill.
-
Hey, Fort Chipeweyan, I realize that a fully independant study with controls in place to redundancy proved that you were dying at an alarming rate from heavy metal induced bile duct cancer from the tar sands, but it's safe to come out now. The world is fine. Jerry says so.
It truly is amazing isn't it? Most rivers are cleaner than they were a decade or two ago. The country has way more trees than 20 or 30 years ago. The environment is truly in great shape!
As for the oil sands, isn't it fantastic that we have this resource? We are truly blessed in this country.
-
When the housing bubble popped and the frequency of foreclosures increased in 2007, the dividends on CDOs (collateralized debt obligations, the derivative products made up of these risky mortgages) plunged and people began to stop buying them. The banks were left holding all these risky mortgages they couldn't unload anymore.
AIG insurance was also devastated by the foreclosure crisis because many of the CDOs were insured through AIG.
That's the kindergarten version... the mechanics of the "securitization chain" were a lot more complicated than that, but that's the basics of it. They couldn't pass the buck anymore, and got left holding the bag.
Anyway, the premise that "moral hazard" keeps banks honest because they've got skin in the game isn't true. They're playing with other peoples' money.
There has been plenty of recent news that proves banks can't be trusted to regulate themselves (LIBOR, money laundering for Iran and drug cartels, using dishonest accounting practices to exaggerate their financial situations, and more.)
-k
You actually make some sense here, and to be honest, I'm not sure where I come down on this issue. Obama would have us believe CDOs only existed because there was no regulation, but lets be honest, the securities industry is one of the most regulated industries on the planet, even before the 2008 crash!
Look at the CDOs. The problem wasn't lack of regulation. It wasn't. Be truthful. How do I know this? Because both Moody's and S&P had these things as AAA paper. Trust me, if the ratting agencies didn't understand these things, there is no way on God's green earth that some watchdog with an arts degree from Syracuse did.
Have you seen the reports from Moody's or S&P? It's pure gibberish. I say it again, the problem was not lack of regulation. There was plenty of regulation. If you want to be brutally honest, the problem was probably that there is no money in bond rating or regulation. The money's at Goldman. So these dummies at the SEC were frankly in over their heads. And apparently so was Moody's and everyone else!!!
More regulation won't save the financial world from another bubble. Let the market be the market.
-
But you've yet to prove that they're shabby. You've yet to give alternate explanations for the data that have been verified independently. You've yet to really do anything but rattle off insults and opinion masquerading as fact. It's pretty embarrassing actually.
Really? Are you really debating whether or not the predictions were incorrect?
I thought even the most ardent warmist accepted this obvious fact.
But since you have your head in the sand, here you go.. Wait, let me quote:
"The observed increase in global mean surface temperature (GMST) over the industrial era is less than 40% of that expected from observed increases in long-lived greenhouse gases together with the best-estimate equilibrium climate sensitivity given by the 2007 Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)."
I kind of feel sorry for you in a weird way. You're still clinging to something that is obviously false.
Pretty much everyone knows this now, which is why climate change has been relegated to somewhere between the hovercraft and giant tomatoes on the national priority list.
It's kind of sad but I love rubbing it in your faces. Mostly because you were all such liars and so adamant about your belief. Religious is the word I would use,. Hateful of those who disagreed.
Truly hateful. That's the thing. I used to just not like liberals. Feel sorry for them. Recognize that maybe, just maybe, they wanted what is best.
But look at the global warming thing. Look how venomously they came after people. Normal scientists who only sought truth. Pure venom.
Liberals, I hav discovered, aren't nice people. They are leeches. Vampires. They suck off of good people. And they use good intentions as a disguise to do it. Liberals are truly awful, disgusting, vile individuals. Global warming isn't a "problem". It's a reason to take your money away from you. It's a reason to control people.
Liberals are the most disgusting vile creatures on the face of the earth, because they use "the greater good" as a reason to suck your blood, even when "the greater good" is a complete and utter sham.
-
This kid is more of a man than you'll ever be.
Many lessons on the double dong, he's had.
-
Still waiting for you to support your argument.
What argument, that the world is fine? Go outside, buddy.
You (or should I say the warmongers) are the ones trying to make an argument. So the onus is upon you to prove your case, not on me.
So far, your results (ie. the accuracy of your predictions) are pretty shabby.
-
I'm really not concerned what you think of children raised in lesbian households because studies prove you wrong.
I'm just pointing out how differently you describe mothers when discussing lesbian mothers vs. straight mothers. The former are hormonal, crazy, emotional nutjobs and the latter stroll through the grocery stores glowing and wearing yoga pants.
You're a misogynist homophobe.
No, you had it wrong. Both are hormonal, crazy emotional nut jobs. One just happens to have a male as her counterpart to balance the kid's upbringing.
Kids need a man in their life to provide structure and leadership. Women generally aren't equipped to teach boys about how to be a man. Why? because women don't know what it is to be a man.
Women complain. Women demand. Women whine. Men do not. What kind of man is this kid gonna grow up to be if he has TWO people who constantly complain abobut how it's somebody else's fault that their life is so shitty?
Women don't know how to teach a boy what every man needs to know: that nobody owes you anything. That the only thing you get in this world is what you EARN.
Women don't understand this. Only women use the word DESERVE. There is no such word in a man's vocabulary. The poor boy is gonna grow up thinking he DESERVES things, because that's how women view the world.
He will not be a man.
-
Ok, here's what I got:
"In economic theory, a moral hazard is a situation where a party will have a tendency to take risks because the costs that could incur will not be felt by the party taking the risk."
Fair enough?
Because if that's the case, then that's *exactly* why regulations *are* necessary on Wall Street. These guys felt safe sinking an absurd amount of money into risky investments, because the magic of the unregulated derivatives market allowed them to pass the risk on to others.
The Clinton and Bush administrations both refused to regulate derivatives, and the result was that banks had financial incentive to make *more* risky investment, not *less*.
-k
I can see where you are trying to make sense, and I give you kudos on that. But remember, the banks failed (or almost did but didn't thanks to TARP - Bush by the way, not sure why Obama keeps taking credit for saving the world). So your premise is false. If the risks were passed on to others, then why did they need a bailout?
-
The inconsistency is where you say above that women ARE happiest as moms, yet you say this about *lesbian* mothers:
So what? Women are only happy as moms when there's a man in the house? Incredible.
Wow. we decided to completely ignore the child in this discussion, didn't we?
This is quite common among feminists. Me me me me me. I I I I I. Screw the baby. Kill it. It's "health care".Certainly women are happy as moms. And I think I see where you are going with this: as long as the two lesbian moms are happy, who gives a shit about the kid, right?
This is the basic premise of all feminists: I can kill a baby if it inconveniences me and call it "health care", and I can ruin a boy's life because I feel like being a lesbian parent.
Me me me me me.
-
Again folks, just take Jerry's word for it. Nothing's happening. George Carlin says so.
Hey bud - go ahead and stick to your dogma.
The essence of science is not to close off debate, but rather to encourage it.
Grow up and admit you don't know everything, I'm not sure why demonization is such a huge part of the liberal playbook, and frankly I don't care.
Making fun of people just because they don't agree with you is a uniquely liberal mindset.
Open your mind. And stop being so dismissive.
-
So what? There is no inconsistency here; women ARE happiest as moms. And two lesbians raising a boy IS ridiculous. Where's the inconsistency?
-
Do you actually think about this stuff, or are you just reading from a script? The United States is far superior to any conceivable military threat. The deficit is a greater threat to America than some imaginary military foe.
-k
you are correct. what I am saying is that military comes first. time to cut some of the fat. defence spending could be part of this.
-
Suckers like you think they're talking about less forms and permits for small-businessmen to fill out, but what they're really talking about is axing Dodd-Frank, and the CFPA, and fighting any further attempts to keep Wall Street honest.
-k
The financial services industry is the most regulated on the planet. Was before the crunch and will be even more after.
Moral hazard is key. Google it and then get back to me. Moral hazard eliminates the need for regulations on wall street.
-
Yep, and the auto bailout.
Actually no. Obama basically contravened bankruptcy law to keep GM a big fat unionized carcass.
-
jerry......just........shhhhhhh....it's getting embarassing now....
Yea you're right. When they have a huge "the earth is gonna melt" parade and then the earth forgets to melt, it's kinda embarrassing.
-
Yeah, well, your guy is the one telling us he's going to spend more money buying navy ships and hiring guys to march around carrying rifles all day.
-k
The first job of any great nation is to protect itself.
-
I would rather see two lesbians in a loving relationship raise a boy than you ever having any kids regardless of gender.
Just stop at the "I'd rather see two lesbians" and you'll be ok.
-
As people keep pointing out to you, Shady, the banks gave out *far* more risky mortgages than any quota required them to, and they did so because thanks to deregulation of derivatives, they were able to make money hand-over-fist at it while passing the risk on to others.
But leaving that aside for the moment: the whole argument that "they lowered lending standards as to facilitate mortgages to people that wouldn't otherwise qualify" just supports the idea that regulations shouldn't have been tampered with in the first place.
Both parties share blame for eroding the regulations that led to the collapse-- it started under Clinton and continued under Bush Jr-- but there's only one party today campaigning with a promise to cut more regulations. You're cheering for them.
-k
Businesses need less red tape. It's a fact. Less red tape means more jobs.
-
And just because you say it's not right that makes it so?
Two women raising a boy? C'mon.
Hillary Clinton & Mitt Romney Versus Barack Obama
in Federal Politics in the United States
Posted
Not sure where I stand on this. It's debatable whether or not Romney was right in criticizing the (Obama's) diplomat position about "respecting religion" above freedom of speech. Should that statement be attributed to the Obama administration? Maybe. But it's a stretch. Romney was probably wrong to try to attribute that statement directly to Obama. In fact he was certainly wrong. But the spirit of what he said was correct.
Obama thinks the same way most of the people on this site think: that America had it coming.