I was 8 for Grease. I only saw it because I went to the movies with a neighbor (and her kids) and she decided we would sneak into grease after and watch it for free. I got in trouble (as if I had a choice).

By then I listened to (what at the time was considered) hard rock…KISS, AC/DC, DIO, Sabbath, Judas Priest, etc. my family liked Barry Manilow, John Denver, and Neil Diamond. The music wasn’t for me.

Greaser/bobbysoxer stuff never excited me either, I wouldn’t have seen it by choice.

Disco…I still like. I don’t care that it’s not popular, in fact that helps. Xanadu came out when I was 10….it also wasn’t my choice of movie, and probably wasn’t as good a movie overall I don’t remember, but I liked it better at 10.

personally, some of the 'big' moments in the series were...

- his daughter saying Joe won (Upset Catsup lost)
- Lady Rudy & kin telling their stories (damn Catsup Tosser)
- the Murtaugh/Wolking email (proof positive of the negative)
- the 'unhinged' meeting (Stalin's death was less surreal)
-'call us if there's an oil spill' line (outlaw AG's is a GOP thing)*

...overall, the Orange Stain is thoroughly shown to be one of the worst humans to serve in the office.

really should be confined. w/mercy: to some mental facility. get some therapy so at least he could have a few days of actual life. w/vengance: solitaire. he'd break inside a week.


*Nixon, Reagan, Saucer Tosser

How well do you follow Tesla? Most likely you answer is near zero. But you sure have all the answers.


Once again You foolishness is on full display. Cherry picking numbers? Thats ok

I said it was down a great amount. 20% or your 32% pick your date pick you %. Does not matter.

IF chicken was on sale 20% or 32% below normal pricing you would buy? Same with Tesla.


This is due to the overall economy. not from anything Tesla is doing. Tesla is is growing. 84% last year and 70% the year before.

This Q2 growth was only 50% . Mostly due the china shutdown. China is back up and running and at record capacity.



Biden economy and Communist fuckery is holding Tesla down , not Tesla. Hence it is a great buy.

Maybe your just a Union only guy? Thats OK.


Regardless of current stock price., who wouldn't want to buy the stock of a company growing 50% YOY?

I follow daily. I have about 1500 shares in the Tesla. And your are right I am down from that $1200 high. But I'm looking long term. 5 year min. I see explosive growth over nest 8 years.

Tesla goal is to make 20Million vehicles/year. Last year nearly 80 million vehicles were made globally. ICE vehicle sales are declining about 7% YoY since 2017. Al the while EV sales are growing.

What side of the fence do you wan t to be on? When Apple entered phone market they were a computer company. Today they have 20% of the phone market .



Apparently not the great intellectual foolish and ignorant @newtboy , who know everything about everything.


Finally, Now you want Elon to buy Twitter?
$1 billion penalty. That nothing to Elon.

Guess if MSNBC says something it must be true.
Newt, your one gullible dude, lady, sis whatever.

Noooo….you still don’t like Biden. You still think self serving narcissistic Trump was a leader, but a lifelong frugal public servant isn’t. Nooooo! (I know there’s no breaking through your fantasy, bob. You are a lost cause, totally divorced from reality and totally uninterested in honesty).

No bob, I mean the Union…as in the United States of America. As in the Union vs the Confederacy. Trump nearly dissolved the Union, so much that Republican platforms now include secession as their goal. Derp. Another “L” for your column. Another dunce cap for your collection.
Republicans want to erase America out of infantile spite, but have no idea what to do afterwards. Better learn Chinese or Russian, red states can’t afford to defend themselves, you are all welfare queen states with the highest murder and crime rates.

Side note: But, this means you are anti union, so 100% anti worker? Really? What favors has Biden handed unions? Most unions (all you oppose) lobby for workers, blue collar employees. You would limit lobbiests to to those lobbying for billionaires and huge corporations (including religious corporations) that actively lobby against workers rights, pay, safety, ecological responsibility, hours, etc. Think about that.

You fucking moron, it went from 3.08% (higher than Trump ever reached) in 2015 under Obama to -3.5% in 2020 (the lowest ever in history). Who the fuck told you .2%? Who told you Trump left it at 2.5%? Overall Obama’s growth rate was actually 50% higher than Trump’s, and Obama inherited a deep recession, Trump inherited a boom. They outright lied to you, and you just lapped it up without ever looking. They’re feeding you poo pie bob, not chocolate. I really wish I didn’t have to spend so much time correcting your obviously fabricated statistics, especially since you only spout them to force a correction, getting you attention, not because you believe or even understand them. So you understand, printing 50% more money while your economy is in the worst contraction ever causes inflation, and that’s what Trump did in 2020 while focusing on the election he lost in a landslide and ignoring the pandemic and economy.

Jobs?!? Obama job growth was near 8% adding 12.5 million jobs, Trump was the only president ever to lose jobs, losing 3.2 million. Another 100% break from reality, buddy. I’m telling you, you need professional help.

Yes, Trump did turn us around, from a massive recovery and booming economy to massive economic losses, job losses, absolutely insane deficits and trying to double the debt, huge money printing in 2020 (magic wand waiving) that creates massive inflation (that he now blames Biden for), undreamed of losses of life, and teetering on the brink of depression and pandemic. He made us madder. For libs that means angry, for cons that means totally bat shit crazy with no ties to reality at all.

Far from it, lots of positive, but so much negative left from the previous one we are still in the red.

They have made policies that help the American pocketbook, Trump robbed it blind to hand to billionaires (and fake billionaires).

Who told you that lie. The Democrats have done everything they legally can to force oil companies to increase production and stop price gouging, Republicans all voted against doing anything, then claim “Biden’s fault”. No fossil fuel production has been cut. You’ve been lied to, and you aren’t intellectually honest enough to investigate for yourself…you don’t want to hear the truth.

Republicans are to blame for high fuel prices, Democrats are responsible for the recent lowering. Democrats are making efforts to lower them further, Republicans are 100% opposed to any actions.

Trump benefited on fuel costs thanks to the economic collapse he caused by denying and ignoring Covid for months, dropping the demand for fuel to nothing…not a good policy overall, or do you suggest killing another million and shutting down another year to lower gas prices?


Lol. You are claiming reports say the average American spends $500 more on fuel and goods per month than under Trump? What reports? Glen Beck, AON, or Rush Limbaugh’s ghost? Only if you are a trucker using hundreds of gallons of gas a month. Even in California, fuel cost has gone up less than 1/5 of what you say.

Trump cost you SO much more than $6k per year, over $60k per taxpayer on the official debt alone…and these extra expenses (probably $100-$200 per month tops) are thanks to Trump printing 1/3 of every dollar in circulation (inflation) and fuel supply and demand being out of hand intentionally because oil companies make more money by producing less, and aren’t nationalized so the government can’t force them to stop gouging.

Such nonsense bob. Your facts are all wrong, and since you won’t investigate you are just going to continue to believe the lies you were fed. The people you listen to are making money off your beliefs, bob, and they see you as a huge sucker they can convince of anything and get your money or support for their America destroying “get me richer quick” schemes.

🤦‍♂️

Summary, since I don’t think you can read that much.
Union = United States Union, not unions
Gdp- Obama 1.59% rising consistently during his presidency Trump 1% falling precipitously to the worst ever in history. Also never beat Obama’s high.
Jobs- Obama added 12.5 million, Trump lost 3.2 million
Debt- Obama added $9 trillion, ending a recession and creating a boom over 8 years. Trump added $8 trillion on the books (and trillions more off the books) in 4 years ending a boom and creating a recession
Deficit- 2020 was the biggest budget deficit ever by >200% at $3.13 trillion and added well over $4.2 trillion to the debt that year, way more than 2021 at a still horrific $2.7 budget deficit but ending adding only $1.5 to the debt.

https://www.thebalance.com/us-deficit-by-year-3306306

Oil/gas price - all cost cutting measures opposed by Cons.

Hardly elitist at under $35k per year for a couple in California.
Not even superior overall as far as I know, (overall superiority is a complicated non standardized judgement to make without complete information about both of us, but thanks for saying you believe it.).
Just somewhat educated not even highly educated, but often more importantly I keep myself decently informed. Sorry to burst your bubble.
(Edit: this means not only learning the facts, but also the “alternative facts”. I read Tzu, and believe in his theory that if you know yourself and your enemy you will be victorious in every battle.)

It’s the smug ignorant incorrect certitude I can’t go for, and you exhibit it daily without ever admitting your mistakes or that you were w-w-w-wrong, just silently moving on to the next falsehood when it’s proven.

Most conservatives just don't have the chops for comedy.

This humor genre is somewhere in the late '80s - early '90s. Dated. Like watching 'Friends'.

Putting that aside (like a used tissue) would have been helpful to know when (the date) these comments were taken. Hard to respond to it. It'd be like Bob saying 'landslide' before the election, and him claiming 'landslide' afterward (granted wrong both times, but the context could be scarier in the second).

There is evidence that the hearings are being heard by members of Dumb Quixote's* herd. So at least they'll have some idea why liar, liar, pants on fire is being prosecuted.

Overall, it's being five full days of powerful testimony. If anyone else's trial was preceding like this, their attorney would be spending hours upon hours trying to get a plea deal &/or getting the defendant to plea.

If this was a murder trial, their lawyer would be saying "plead guilty! throw yourself on the mercy of the court! at this point the best we can hope for is to have your body buried in secrecy - so your grave doesn't get violated!"**

may not get the deluded to become undeluded but the bells of truth are ringing and bringing a lot to church. while the rest are whistling through the graveyard.

JUDGEMENT: use crazy don's 🚽 file system for this vid.

*windmills, ya' see
**cited line from https://youtu.be/RCRqjJXHfQs

Not everyone is in the industry. CGI is used as a layman’s term, although the professional definition still fits.

Um…”they” who? what sales pitch? WTF are you talking about? I used it as a tag. WHAT!?! Are you on crack, sir?

If it’s an image of reality altered digitally, it’s not purely cg, it’s cgi…

SFX is the overall category, not a sub genre of CGI.

Yes, their three examples of well known blockbuster CGI films were pure CG images…they were not an all inclusive list, they weren’t even varied examples of all different types of CGI, they were three of the best known examples of pure CGI in main stream cinema.

OMG, that WAS your argument. LMFAHS!!! Feel shame. So incredibly stupid. That means absolutely nothing beyond those were the three movies they chose as well known examples. It in no way argues that the rest of the definition they gave is in any way incorrect. Derp!

Like saying the article on dogs had a pictures of a poodle, so all dogs must have curly hair. Just silly.

So if you synthesize your own through exposure to sunlight, you’re good? Or at least better off?
Is it possible that it’s not the delivery method, but the systems that use vitamin D being healthy beforehand vs being supplemented after the fact? Maybe it takes a while to get those systems healthy, and supplements don’t help with that.

Edit: Maybe, since the same receptors are used to metabolize vitamin D as to infect a cell with covid, those receptors being “full” might be what’s stopping infections, and dosing with vitamin D after infection doesn’t magically replace the Covid with vitamin D? Not really about vitamin D or why you need it, just about the mechanism the body uses to use the vitamin D? Biology is intricate, and why things work and how is not always clean and simple.

Melatonin? Then why aren’t people with more melatonin, people of color, nearly immune? Why are island nations like the Virgin Islands still having outbreaks today? Why were Southern states hit just as hard or harder than northern states? Many questions here.

His explanation seems to confirm this. If your cells produce vitamin D efficiently, they are less prone to infections, if you artificially add artificial vitamin D, it helps with the cellular functions, but the processes that should be producing it are still suppressed, possibly more because your body isn’t triggering them due to low vitamin D levels. It’s less about overall vitamin D levels than about having healthy systems that properly produce and utilize it….at least that’s my takeaway.

It’s not just about sunlight..it’s about diet, overall health, sleep, etc. biology is complex, and we always want a simple solution. There isn’t one most of the time, and our attempts to simplify only make things worse. Eat well, sleep well, get some sun, get some exercise, and you’ll be as safe as you can be naturally….then try supplements in addition, not instead.

I get plenty of sun, and my windows are from the 50’s. It definitely makes me feel better to get sun, but there’s a limit. Don’t just go sunbathe in Arizona, use your brain.

If that were true for everyone, there would be no children in foster care.

It doesn’t take children to expand your limits, they just give you no choice. I found I can go weeks on < 5 hours sleep a night all by myself, I became more patient just by getting older, I’m more compassionate because I’m not a thoughtless teenager anymore, no child required. I also retained my sanity (what little I started with).
Sure there are some good times for the parents, but not so much for the public at large. Overall making more people with the massive glut of humanity that exists has a negative value. I wrote a thesis on this, called “the fallacy of the intrinsic value of human life”. Got an A. Horrified my writing class. Double win!!

@newtboy,

A company cancelling a multi-billion dollar project means multi-billion dollars not spent on the work of the project, that many jobs out of the economy. Exactly the same as a car manufacturer shutting down for a week, by your logic nothing was lost, the company just stopped spending money for a couple days...

I only support the groups right to protest, and not to illegally block roads or borders. I stand by my wish is for their prompt arrest when illegal blocking roads, borders or places of business.

That said, I believe it also wrong of me to fail to point out that our federal government has continually refused to act as I would wish in promptly shutting down illegal blockades. This is the very first instance were they've shown any interest in a prompt police enforced end, and they've in fact jump much further to invoking a declaration of national emergency so they can also target protesters bank accounts directly and without court orders.

An analogy would be someone that supports arresting people for possession of marijuana. The government then proceeds to only selectively enforce that law, say only acting to make arrests when people are a particular creed or color. It's perfectly consistent to believe the government arrests are wrong and unfair, and to NOT support them, while at the same time still believing the idea of the rule applied fairly being a good idea.

One side is about what I think the line for protest should be:
-I believe the right to protest should be independent of creed or belief, and should only be restricted when actions taken are illegal.(Ideally illegal being defined as impeding on freedoms of others)

By that, the convoy blockade of border or streets should have led to immediate arrests.

In the eye of fairness though, the last two years have already seen at a minimum 3 major protests, that included illegal blockades of work sites and railways and those were ALL allowed to run for weeks and in 2 cases months. The government of the day even tripped over themselves to message their support for the overall causes of the protestors.

In that light, it's wrong to simply ignore the fact that the first protest that is likely to vote conservative is the ONLY one where the government immediately condemns everything about them and feels compelled to intervene urgently.

Churches were literally burning last summer, and our PM's public statements spent most of their time sympathizing with the anger before pleading that burning churches isn't helpful. Where'd all that compassion for folks that you disagree with go when it meant a small number of downtown Ottawa business shutdown and horns honking go. Now our PM invokes terrorizing of the populace.

Trudeau's actions have been distressingly similar to Trump's as the division in our country grows, he's using his words to reach out to the extreme end of his side of the aisle, while tossing gasoline and vitriol onto his opposition. It's making things worse in the worst possible way when we need leaders uniting instead of stoking further division.

A German mark had value….until it didn’t. Your opinion of “fiat money” isn’t universal by any stretch. You say it’s universally better. I wholeheartedly disagree, and point to Germany and Venezuela as proof. They aren’t outliers either, (looking at Africa).

Gold is useful and valuable. Digital footprints aren’t. Paper notes aren’t. Printed circuits, connectors, anti oxidation, actual physical money, jewelry, etc. gold has intrinsic value, a dollar bill has about 13210 joules, so its intrinsic worth is about 1 small 1 gram stick as kindling and little more….no matter if it’s a $1 or $500 bill or a check for billions. Again, see Germany, where bills were more valuable as firewood than money.

This deflation idea again. Give me 3 examples of deflation harming/ending a nation on the gold standard please, I’ve never heard of it happening. (Edit: as far as I can find, I’m no economics professor, for the most part the gold standard was abandoned worldwide in the early 1930’s and the last remnants removed in the early 70’s by Nixon)

Explain how unsecured notes guard against speculation….don’t just claim it. I don’t see it, people made a mint short selling Venezuelan (and other failed) dollars….speculating they would crash….they did. What?

GDP is the metric that imparts value to unsecured notes offered by countries.

I think you had a mini stroke, the paragraph starting USofA is a word salad with no meaning.

Name 3. I named Germany post ww1….they didn’t get to borrow or ignore their debts. What are you talking about?

So, the only ones that don’t/can’t borrow are all the ones that need to.

Pretending basing your dollar on Bitcoin is the same as basing it on gold is outrageous idiotic bullshit. Just nonsense. Utterly moronic and pure fantasy. Don’t try moving the goalposts, that’s what you said.

Yes, the fed will take gold. They don’t take Bitcoin, do they? How about shells? Pebbles?

Jesus, you just want to argue. You’re rambling, switching positions and going off on tangents.
It’s not about whether someone might accept it, it’s about whether it’s universally accepted at one value and about holding its accepted long term value. People once gladly accepted beanie babies as payment….stupid people.
Arcata Ca printed up Arcata dollars….you could get them cheap, businesses took them. Wanna put your nest egg into them? You say that’s good money, as good as dollars. I’ll sell them to you for gold, and let’s see who’s doing better in 10 years. Or I’ll sell you pebbles for gold. Any currency you want, I’ll sell you for gold. How’s that working with pebbles or shells? Can you buy currency with them?

It has everything to do with how much it’s worth. Stop jumping subjects because your point is failing to convince. An economy based on pebbles fails because their neighbors don’t value pebbles, but if their pebbles are gold, they succeed because gold is valued universally.

What are you talking about, the gold standard’s ability to keep up? Huh?! No keep up necessary, no slow down required, gold trades exactly as fast as everything else. What is this nonsense?!?

You mean you can’t overspend and go deep into debt?! And that’s bad?! In your opinion, not many economists….and what makes you think you can’t borrow against gold? Secured loans are easier and cheaper to come by. WHAT?!?

Yes, unsecured paper money can just be printed forever, you CAN “sell the universe”. (Or sell dollars who’s overall value is based on your country’s value) over and over, then print more and sell 9/10 again, print more, sell again. Eventually that money is worth less than it costs to print, and your creditors get paid off in dollars worth a tiny fraction of what they lent you. Not if it’s backed with gold.

Miracle cure?!? Quote it. I think you misread. Secured notes being better than unsecured notes is not “miracle cure” or perfection, it’s just measurably better, safer, and more stable. No system is perfect.

Did they offer that in the program, or was it only random individuals….or are you extrapolating, assuming the program became universal? I thought this plan was just for the indigent.

$500 each for 4 works out to more than my wife brought home for 40 hours a week after 15 years at her last job…..barely livable for 4 anywhere in California, a nice income in some states. Not a huge amount to provide for 6 months. How much does temporary housing, services, extra law enforcement, etc cost over that time for 4 people? I assume they’re close.

Yes, universal income is costly, but most on the right won’t consider giving the destitute money if they don’t get a handout too, that likely multiplies the amount by over 10 times. With a means test, it would be billions, maybe under $100 billion. We spent nearly $6 trillion on bad Covid response in 2020, including trillions to corporate welfare handouts with no strings attached and they still fired millions of workers. I think if that’s ok we can afford to invest in making people productive again instead of drains on society (of course, not everyone will benefit, but 75% success must be a win overall). If not, socialize any corporation that took a bailout, we bought em, we should own them.

…Or taking on more debt like every government project, but the increase in gdp from turning costs into profits likely pays for the program without a dime in new taxes, just a reduction in costs of handling the homeless and new taxes from their incomes….especially if you have a means test and not universal income.

Yes, they convoluted by calling it universal income but focusing on homeless. It should be UMI. Universal Minimum Income….under employed get less than unemployed up to a certain minimum livable combined income, fully employed (with living wages) get nothing….IMO. Sadly, a large portion of people can’t see what’s in that plan for them (no homeless, less crime dumbshits) so won’t consider it unless they also get $500 even though that’s not even a noticeable amount to them….one more ivory backscratcher.

I'm gonna have to be that guy. $500 a month for a family of four is $2k, which is a very good chunk of money to drop in your lap.

That works out the same as it they were on a single income, working 40 hour weeks at $10/hr, so almost equivalent to a full time job. No doubt that's gonna be a big deal and noticeable financial improvement to the recipient(s).

As always with UBI schemes, the devil is in how you pay for it. If it's truly universal, paying $500/month to ~330 million Americans would cost $1.98 Trillion dollars, meanwhile the current entire US gov budget for 2022 is estimated at $1.2 Trillion.

So, to implement $500/month universally in America would require not only increasing overall tax revenues by almost 50% it would also require the cancellation of 100% of every single other expenditure. That not includes military spending going to zero, but even cancelling the jobs of everyone that collects taxes and would presumably have been responsible for distributing the $500 checks.

If the 'fix' is to just tax the pants off anyone earning more than the $500/month, or limiting who we give it to, then it ceases to be a UBI scheme, and is instead just a mundane modification of the existing social security scheme by shuffling more money back and forth between different folks.

Can only guess what BK33's video is about. Seeing "T*****'s lawer" and the "Q" in the corner, is like being offered a cold sore lipped kiss.

I'll pass.

If it was something about '16 vs '20 - it's a poor point. No one died. People were unhappy but compliant. No one lied that the votes were tainted. '16 was far more sane and civil.

AND LOOK WHO WAS INSTALLED IN 2016!

It was like a Prom fiasco where the frogs from the biology lab won both King and Queen. Just made a mockery of the Prom's First Dance.

All the more reason the objection(s) to the 2020 election was a travesty. 2016 installed one of the worst ever!

https://www.c-span.org/presidentsurvey2021/?page=overall

[Even ranked below a man that really never served. Man on his deathbed was considered a better President.]

Just incase you're afraid of- you know- facing reality

========================================


IQ testing and the eugenics movement in the United States

Eugenics, a set of beliefs and practices aimed at improving the genetic quality of the human population by excluding people and groups judged to be inferior and promoting those judged to be superior,[39][40][41] played a significant role in the history and culture of the United States during the Progressive Era, from the late 19th century until US involvement in World War II.[42][43]

The American eugenics movement was rooted in the biological determinist ideas of the British Scientist Sir Francis Galton. In 1883, Galton first used the word eugenics to describe the biological improvement of human genes and the concept of being "well-born".[44][45] He believed that differences in a person's ability were acquired primarily through genetics and that eugenics could be implemented through selective breeding in order for the human race to improve in its overall quality, therefore allowing for humans to direct their own evolution.[46]

Goddard was a eugenicist. In 1908, he published his own version, The Binet and Simon Test of Intellectual Capacity, and cordially promoted the test. He quickly extended the use of the scale to the public schools (1913), to immigration (Ellis Island, 1914) and to a court of law (1914).[47]

Unlike Galton, who promoted eugenics through selective breeding for positive traits, Goddard went with the US eugenics movement to eliminate "undesirable" traits.[48] Goddard used the term "feeble-minded" to refer to people who did not perform well on the test. He argued that "feeble-mindedness" was caused by heredity, and thus feeble-minded people should be prevented from giving birth, either by institutional isolation or sterilization surgeries.[47] At first, sterilization targeted the disabled, but was later extended to poor people. Goddard's intelligence test was endorsed by the eugenicists to push for laws for forced sterilization. Different states adopted the sterilization laws at different paces. These laws, whose constitutionality was upheld by the Supreme Court in their 1927 ruling Buck v. Bell, forced over 60,000 people to go through sterilization in the United States.[49]

California's sterilization program was so effective that the Nazis turned to the government for advice on how to prevent the birth of the "unfit".[50] While the US eugenics movement lost much of its momentum in the 1940s in view of the horrors of Nazi Germany, advocates of eugenics (including Nazi geneticist Otmar Freiherr von Verschuer) continued to work and promote their ideas in the United States.[50] In later decades, some eugenic principles have made a resurgence as a voluntary means of selective reproduction, with some calling them "new eugenics".[51] As it becomes possible to test for and correlate genes with IQ (and its proxies),[52] ethicists and embryonic genetic testing companies are attempting to understand the ways in which the technology can be ethically deployed.[53]