westend1

15 minutes ago, stevenash said:

 

If you have plenty of equity markets exposure, your retirement account has done better in the last 9 months than it has in just about any 9 month period in quite a while.

10 minutes ago, stevenash said:

Nice try westend.  Unfortunately for you, there is no BS when uttering facts.  What I stated were facts and no one is attempting to fool anybody about anything.  Facts are exactly what I stated and another fact is that the Dow Jones Industrial Average set another new high today.  If you want to call it fooling someone or call it BS, that's fine but the BS is the FACT that you cannot/will not acknowledge the UNDENIABLE FACTS that began this thread.  ( incidentally, most of what was gained during the prior 8 years was simply the recovery of what had been lost during the market decline of 2008.  If you want to know what your account really has earned, go back to 95 or 2000 and do the calculations on what the average annual return was.  I know you wont do that because it is easier to simply state that Mr. Obama is an economic guru which is quite laughable.

than it has in just about any 9 month period in quite a while.

LOL.  Lots of qualifiers in there

8 minutes ago, stevenash said:

Nice try westend.  Unfortunately for you, there is no BS when uttering facts.  What I stated were facts and no one is attempting to fool anybody about anything.  Facts are exactly what I stated and another fact is that the Dow Jones Industrial Average set another new high today.  If you want to call it fooling someone or call it BS, that's fine but the BS is the FACT that you cannot/will not acknowledge the UNDENIABLE FACTS that began this thread.  ( incidentally, most of what was gained during the prior 8 years was simply the recovery of what had been lost during the market decline of 2008.  If you want to know what your account really has earned, go back to 95 or 2000 and do the calculations on what the average annual return was.  I know you wont do that because it is easier to simply state that Mr. Obama is an economic guru which is quite laughable.

Market doubled in last 8 years.  If it does the same in the next 8, I will give Trump all the credit.

lol

My retirement accounts did great under Obama.  Judging from the title of this thread, he should get all the credit.  Right?   You can fool some people with this bs, but not all.

30 minutes ago, ST413 said:

Exactly what I am talking about.  

I don't see it as a loophole.  They can break up the cases and sell them individually or they can do you a favor and leave them in cases.   

I don't recall anyone complaining about paying a buck seventy nine for a bottle of water 

I have a couple of boats.  One surface drive. Let me know where we can help. Went to pine forest yesterday. Happy to come to mid county if we can help.  Westend

12 hours ago, baddog said:

Man, I learn something new everyday. Clinton must have a hit list for FBI members.

FBI shuts down request for files on Hillary Clinton by citing lack of public interest

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

They can appeal.  

Shocked that you don't see the humor

4 hours ago, baddog said:

Almost as funny as Hillary being met by 6 people at Mid County airport.

Entertainers look at projected ticket sales before they travel and perform. So I fail to see the humor.

 

43 minutes ago, BS Wildcats said:

Why do Dimtards have a problem with someone upholding the laws of the land?  

dimtards and dimocrats in back to back posts?  Man, you sound smart.

1 hour ago, Reagan said:

Plus, only an issue because the Trump/Russia collusion was a lie.  This is their next stupid thing to throw up against the wall and see if it sticks. 

Which wall?  The one Mexico is paying for?  Or is it the one that Trump is threatening to shut down the government over because the Congress doesn't want to pay for it?

11 hours ago, PhatMack19 said:

How old is the Earth?  150 years of data doesn't tell much. 

 

What happened to the dinosaurs?

About 6000 years old according to jvcoach

26 minutes ago, BS Wildcats said:

That's what you're doing, is it not?

No. I read articles and try to get all the information I can. You should try it

Lol.  The national inquirer

21 minutes ago, CardinalBacker said:

The North didn't have a problem with slavery, either, or they'd have freed their own slaves. But that's not what they did, now is it?

At the end of the day, the location where you and your family lived and owned property played the main deciding factor on which side of the conflict you found yourself. 

Think about it. Let's assume you were a landowner in Texas, which joined the union in December of 1845. Fifteen years later (1861) the Federal government is trying to impose much more authority over the people of the State of Texas than the government of the Republic of Texas ever had. What would you do? Abandon your land and head North in a show of solidarity to this new, over-reaching goverment, or stay home and join with your friends and family to defend your home?

Too many people who never owned slaves died too close to home to ever paint all Southerners as traitors who just wanted to keep the institution of slavery in place. 

Yeah.  They did.  Look, you can google "cause of civil war" and try to pick out the most reputable looking sites and 9 out of 10 will say it was the issue of slavery that caused the south to try to secede.  I'll go with that.  I get that it makes southerners feel better to try and revise that history, but it's just not true.  Anyhow, I won't convince you and neither will all those historians so I am done with it. Believe what makes you feel good

3 hours ago, CardinalBacker said:

So why wasn't an executive order issued for the Northern slaves at the same time? Those people remained enslaved. 

I'll give you a hint... the US government didn't care about freeing slaves... ol' Honest Abe was solely interested in disrupting production of slave-made war goods in the South. If the North was truly fighting to free the slaves, they would have been freed in the North before the war ever started. 

Of course slavery was a key issue in the dispute over states' rights. But pretending that the war was fought solely over slavery by people who were either for it (South) or against it (North) is as silly as claiming the Revolutionary War was fought over stamp prices. 

There was enough common sense around 150 years ago that people realized that reconciliation and cooperation were the keys to rebuilding a strong union. Its kinda funny how suddenly after the 2016 Election you have Democrats realizing that they have seemingly forever lost the support of the South, suddenly wanting to punish Southerns by branding them all as racists. 

 

But it was the south that wanted to keep slavery.  They saw the handwriting on the wall.   The Missouri compromise wasn't enough to satisfy the south.  They were afraid that emancipation was coming so they tried to bail

53 minutes ago, CardinalBacker said:

Robert E Lee opposed slavery. He freed the slaves on his plantation (which later became the Arlington National Cemetery) before the war, educated black children (which was illegal at the time), and was a decorated general in the US Army before and after the Civil War. He even taught at West Point. 

At the time of the Civil War, the majority of governing power was centralized in state governments instead of the federal government. It's hard for people to imagine today, but in the mid 1800s state governments played a much larger role in everyday life. The federal government was only 70 years old at the time of the civil war. Most states had been members of the US for an even shorter period than that. If I'm not mistaken, Texas had joined the Union less than 20 years before the war broke out. Leaving the union didn't seem to be the "traitorous" or "treasonous" act that it seems to be today. 

Robert E Lee was a patriot and unfortunately was a major landowner in the self-glossed Commonwealth of Virginia at the time that they decided to secede. 

People who claim that the civil war was primarily about slavery are taking a very simplified view on a very complex subject. The Emancipation Proclamation enacted by the federal government in the North freed slaves, but only those in the South. Slaves in the North weren't freed by the Federal Government until much later. If it truly fought over slavery, then why didn't the North free their own slaves until later? Seems to me that Northern slaves would have been freed first, not last, if the North was truly fighting just to end slavery. 

But why let actual history get in the way of a good story. 

Emancipation in the south was done by executive order to help the war effort.   A constitutional amendment had been in the works for some time and was passed around the time the war ended.  Anyone who thinks slavery was not the central issue doesn't understand much about the years leading to the war

4 minutes ago, CardinalBacker said:

And uneducated. 

You mean like the trump base?  Agreed

13 minutes ago, BS Wildcats said:

Your reading comprehension skills seem to be lacking.  I never read where he said he grew up in a poor black neighborhood.

User name checks out

5 minutes ago, team first said:

"Without having grown up in that environment " 

so no I didn't bring it up 

So you grew up in a poor black neighborhood?  I think you are lying

20 minutes ago, team first said:

Why would this be any of your business? 

You brought it up.  If you don't want to talk about it, don't bring it up

43 minutes ago, team first said:

You have no idea how I grew up, nor me you. 

43 minutes ago, team first said:

You have no idea how I grew up, nor me you. 

So tell us. Where did you grow up?  Poverty?

34 minutes ago, team first said:

Those neighborhoods where not always bad, and who are you wanting to blame for part time parents ?

The neighborhoods were bad. That's where black families were able to afford housing in the 50s and 60s.   Could the kids have done better? Of course.  But without having grown up in that environment, you have no idea how you might have turned out.  Look around at the number of kids who are losers but had a much better opportunity.