TRUMP for Prez

No blind trust for Trump:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/n...ectid=11749424

Trump said in the 60min interview that He would not be taking the 400k yearly sallery

Originally Posted by grant_west

Trump said in the 60min interview that He would not be taking the 400k yearly sallery

George Washington tried that too: http://www.politico.com/magazine/sto...hington-214458

He said he had to take $1

Originally Posted by grant_west

Trump said in the 60min interview that He would not be taking the 400k yearly sallery

400K is peanuts compared to how much you can skim when you are embedded in the system. Just look at the Clinton's. At least with your assets in a blind trust you give the illusion of not manipulating the system for personal gain. At least he is keeping nepotism on a leash. Oh wait, ha ha.

Originally Posted by ralph

Yes but once again, Christian is the family, Catholic is the subset. So if you are Catholic you are Christian as well.



That's what your sect believes, other sects in the family believe variations of the same theme.

How you can be so certain about something so ethereal is something I cannot relate to. IMO it is dangerous to define your belief structure with such certainty around something with a self supporting logic system. If it runs astray you can become zealot and start doing horrible **** to other humans so easily.

Depends. Catholicism believes a man is the head of the church and is God's messenger on earth. They unfallability of the Pope has been upheld by the Vatican 1 and 2 as well as the Council of Trent.

Catholics can promote humans to deity status (Saints) in their belief system.

Catholics used to throw Christians to the lions for entertainment. How do you rectify that little difference if they are really from the same cloth? Christians would not accept the saints and so on being brought into the faith. The saints were placed in place of the pagan deities of the old Roman religions. Why do you think that all our "Christian" holidays actually overlap with the old pagan ritual days?

Christians believe Christ died for their sins and their relationship is directly with God through Jesus and not the church. There is no vote for deity status. There is no praying to dead relatives. None of that. They did not send people to the lions. They were the food themselves.

Look I can't tell you what to do. Study up on it and make your own mind up. However, when people bring up bull crap that Christians caused all sorts of wars, then they need to actually understand the facts.

I'm not sure if you understand my argument?
Here is a metaphor, the bible loves these things so it should illuminate what I am trying to say.
You have a waterskier and a wakeboard. Both think they are Watersports.
Waterskier says to wakeboarder, you don't do watersports because you stand sideways, Waterskiers stand front on. That is the only way to do watersports.

This is your mentality. The details around why you have to stand front on is irrelevant, both are water sports.

Ok back on topic, if that's possible LOL.

Law maker comes up with "Suck it up Buttercup" legislature to stop funding universities from providing public funded "crisis counciling" at these Universities that have "Cry ZONES" LOL please tell me this another one of these fake News story's I am now famous for!! This can't be Real.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/iowa-bob...uttercup-bill/

Sorry guys get over it and move on.

Maybe we can all agree that these were the good ol days.

I thought I was spending too much time arguing with you guys, then I read this last night:

http://motherboard.vice.com/en_au/re...n-major-issues

I realize the majority of the group and I disagree on a lot of issues, but I would urge you to do your own research on Net Neutrality . The short version; Verizon and Time Warner who are both cable TV providers and ISPs (access to the internet) will now have a clear path to charge Netflix, HBO Go, Amazon Prime, Plex and other competitors in the VOD arena a premium to deliver/stream content. If you've wondered how Netflix can produce quality shows (Stranger Things, Bloodline) and still remain affordable it is in part because they're able to deliver through same internet as Wake World. With out Net Neutrality, cable providers will now be able to charge certain companies an access fee that they wouldn't incur themselves.

@Delta - If you're thinking is a bandwidth thing, then that would also apply to XBox live/BF1. Meaning the target maybe VOD providers, making our gaming collateral damage.

If you think big companies will not take advantage of you, explain long distance phone charges from the 90s

Wes, "Maybe we can all agree that these were the good ol days." - NO

Regan's job growth numbers were less than both Bill Clinton’s record and Jimmy Carter’s record on a per year basis.

As for the deficit, the ratio of deficit to GDP was the following :

Ronald Reagan: Average 4.2%
Bill Clinton: Average 0.5%
Barack Obama: Average 8.9% I put his number here too so you don't think this is liberal propaganda, just facts.

The big lesson is don't believe anything you see in big letters over a picture!

I actually think the primary fallacy of that meme is "Reagan created..."

We act like the President is the god of the world economy.

Presidents can directly influence spending, but they can't directly cause GDP to rise.

Reagan WAS responsible for significantly increasing international tensions and the cold war. War Games/Threads/The Day After etc. didn't all get produced around the same time by accident. People (at least some people) were genuinely worried about Reagan's foreign policy. We have the benefit of 20/20 hindsight now, but at the time he called the USSR the "Evil Empire." (not a great position from which to negotiate a peace). He also pretty well ignored AIDS and we all can see how successful "just say no!" was.

You only need to look at how great the punk music of the 80s was to know that not everybody was on the St. Ronny bandwagon.

Originally Posted by ralph

I'm not sure if you understand my argument?
Here is a metaphor, the bible loves these things so it should illuminate what I am trying to say.
You have a waterskier and a wakeboard. Both think they are Watersports.
Waterskier says to wakeboarder, you don't do watersports because you stand sideways, Waterskiers stand front on. That is the only way to do watersports.

This is your mentality. The details around why you have to stand front on is irrelevant, both are water sports.

I'm not sure that you understand Delta's argument or that you even read it. There are VAST differences between Catholics and Protestants. Your metaphor doesn't work. I'll let Delta speak for himself though.

Originally Posted by shawndoggy

I actually think the primary fallacy of that meme is "Reagan created..."

We act like the President is the god of the world economy.

Presidents can directly influence spending, but they can't directly cause GDP to rise.

Reagan WAS responsible for significantly increasing international tensions and the cold war. War Games/Threads/The Day After etc. didn't all get produced around the same time by accident. People (at least some people) were genuinely worried about Reagan's foreign policy. We have the benefit of 20/20 hindsight now, but at the time he called the USSR the "Evil Empire." (not a great position from which to negotiate a peace). He also pretty well ignored AIDS and we all can see how successful "just say no!" was.

You only need to look at how great the punk music of the 80s was to know that not everybody was on the St. Ronny bandwagon.

He also ENDED the cold war. I wish the morons of today would take a queue from the 80's punk scene and keep their protests limited to song lyrics and on-stage antics.

It was a joke guys

Originally Posted by markj

He also ENDED the cold war. I wish the morons of today would take a queue from the 80's punk scene and keep their protests limited to song lyrics and on-stage antics.

There was plenty of civil disobedience in the 80s. In my neck of the woods protesters were arrested all the time at the Nevada test site.

Ivy League elitist college students spearheaded us divestiture from apartheid South Africa.

Originally Posted by ralph

I'm not sure if you understand my argument?
Here is a metaphor, the bible loves these things so it should illuminate what I am trying to say.
You have a waterskier and a wakeboard. Both think they are Watersports.
Waterskier says to wakeboarder, you don't do watersports because you stand sideways, Waterskiers stand front on. That is the only way to do watersports.

This is your mentality. The details around why you have to stand front on is irrelevant, both are water sports.

I'm catching what you are saying. However we all know that wakeboarders mess up the water for skiers so there is that....... haha.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_in...ne_trafficking

Originally Posted by doublemwa

I thought I was spending too much time arguing with you guys, then I read this last night:

http://motherboard.vice.com/en_au/re...n-major-issues

I realize the majority of the group and I disagree on a lot of issues, but I would urge you to do your own research on Net Neutrality . The short version; Verizon and Time Warner who are both cable TV providers and ISPs (access to the internet) will now have a clear path to charge Netflix, HBO Go, Amazon Prime, Plex and other competitors in the VOD arena a premium to deliver/stream content. If you've wondered how Netflix can produce quality shows (Stranger Things, Bloodline) and still remain affordable it is in part because they're able to deliver through same internet as Wake World. With out Net Neutrality, cable providers will now be able to charge certain companies an access fee that they wouldn't incur themselves.

@Delta - If you're thinking is a bandwidth thing, then that would also apply to XBox live/BF1. Meaning the target maybe VOD providers, making our gaming collateral damage.

If you think big companies will not take advantage of you, explain long distance phone charges from the 90s

I have not given too much thought on it. I can see both sides of the argument:

1) I was against the re-unification of the baby bells and many other companies during Clinton's time in office. They were originally broken up to keep from having monopolies. I am torn on this issue because the government is picking winners and losers, however if you have one company shutting down everyone else, there will not be innovation and competition.

2) Netflix and others are making a ton of money by utilizing equipment that is used and upgraded by another company. The other company has to charge enough to pay for their gear and upkeep. They either get the money from the customer or they get it from the company that is profiting handsomely off of their equipment. Not sure how this end to be honest.

Originally Posted by shawndoggy

I actually think the primary fallacy of that meme is "Reagan created..."

We act like the President is the god of the world economy.

Presidents can directly influence spending, but they can't directly cause GDP to rise.

Reagan WAS responsible for significantly increasing international tensions and the cold war. War Games/Threads/The Day After etc. didn't all get produced around the same time by accident. People (at least some people) were genuinely worried about Reagan's foreign policy. We have the benefit of 20/20 hindsight now, but at the time he called the USSR the "Evil Empire." (not a great position from which to negotiate a peace). He also pretty well ignored AIDS and we all can see how successful "just say no!" was.

You only need to look at how great the punk music of the 80s was to know that not everybody was on the St. Ronny bandwagon.

Reagan was a union negotiator for the Screen Actors Guild. Yes. He to was a democrat. Part of winning a bargaining session is the other side has to believe you have actions behind your position.

I don't think you understand something. Reagan did not start the cold war. He finished it. I absolutely believe that younger people don't realize the actual events that happened post WW2. These people murdered millions of people. This was not a theory of governing. This was real. This was a diametrically opposed force who had massive power. Reagan labeled them to provide pressure. World pressure. Remember East Germany? You know the people the Soviets would shoot if they tried to cross to West Germany. The whole east Europe where people were used as slave labor for the Soviet Empire. We won the culture war against them. Then came the financial war against them. We forced their hand at weapons development. We made them go bankrupt. That is how we won the war.

With the increase in military spending came the technology spin offs that have lasted for the last 30 years.

Originally Posted by plhorn

Wes, "Maybe we can all agree that these were the good ol days." - NO

Regan's job growth numbers were less than both Bill Clinton’s record and Jimmy Carter’s record on a per year basis.

As for the deficit, the ratio of deficit to GDP was the following :

Ronald Reagan: Average 4.2%
Bill Clinton: Average 0.5%
Barack Obama: Average 8.9% I put his number here too so you don't think this is liberal propaganda, just facts.

The big lesson is don't believe anything you see in big letters over a picture!

Bill Clinton got to ride the technology growth from the military spending in the 80's. The numbers point to having a product that foreign money is brought into the country. The spending did not change much, it was imports vs exports so to speak.

Originally Posted by shawndoggy

There was plenty of civil disobedience in the 80s. In my neck of the woods protesters were arrested all the time at the Nevada test site.

Ivy League elitist college students spearheaded us divestiture from apartheid South Africa.

And it turns out all those protestors were wrong. Nothing came about with the test site and South Africa is a mess.

LOL delta, having lived through it myownself, I very much understand that the cold war ended with the collapse of the soviet union under bush 1. To say Reagan ended the cold war assumes that there was no way that things could have gone drastically wrong... especially considering that Reagan went through three Russian presidents during his time. One could just as easily say that Gorbachev ended the cold war.

Point of clarification -- soviets didn't shoot east germans crossing into the west, east germans did. I'm happy to be proven wrong, but I think the iron curtain client states were a net drain on USSR, not other way around.

As I said, hindsight is 20/20 and makes it seem like all of our decisions were good and all of theirs were bad. History is written by the winners, after all.

Originally Posted by deltahoosier

And it turns out all those protestors were wrong. Nothing came about with the test site and South Africa is a mess.

Really?

A: when was the last nuke test at the test site, Delta?
B: apartheid is over, buddy, in case you didn't hear the news.

You seem to think a protest is no good if it doesn't directly result in an immediate concession. To the contrary, protests can be turning points in the way our culture sees things. MLK's "I Have a Dream" speech and Kent State come to mind.

Boston Tea Party, Remember the Alamo, and all that.

Originally Posted by ralph

I'm not sure if you understand my argument?
Here is a metaphor, the bible loves these things so it should illuminate what I am trying to say.
You have a waterskier and a wakeboard. Both think they are Watersports.
Waterskier says to wakeboarder, you don't do watersports because you stand sideways, Waterskiers stand front on. That is the only way to do watersports.

This is your mentality. The details around why you have to stand front on is irrelevant, both are water sports.

Not to belabor the point but this is too fun to not comment.

Wakeboarding and water skiing. Both use water and both use a boat and both use a rope and handle. I would never call them the same.

The boats are different in construction and weight. One wants to plow the water as possible while one wants the water as smooth as possible. One, the rope has no stretch while the other rope has stretch. One rides facing forward while the other rides sidways. The skill sets are completely different. One tries to stay on the water, the other wants to leave the water.

I bet you one thing. If your neighbors see you loading up to go out and they say have fun water skiing, you would correct them in a second and tell them you wakeboard.

Originally Posted by shawndoggy

Really?

A: when was the last nuke test at the test site, Delta?
B: apartheid is over, buddy, in case you didn't hear the news.

You seem to think a protest is no good if it doesn't directly result in an immediate concession. To the contrary, protests can be turning points in the way our culture sees things. MLK's "I Have a Dream" speech and Kent State come to mind.

Boston Tea Party, Remember the Alamo, and all that.

Define nuke test. Critical or sub critical?

First article on a search. Wiki has the last one in 2015 so there is that.....

http://thebulletin.org/subcritical-experiments

Subcritical experiments

Earlier this month, the US National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) announced that it had conducted a subcritical experiment with plutonium in an underground tunnel 300 meters below the Nevada National Security Site (formerly, the Nevada Test Site), about 65 miles northwest of Las Vegas. Named Pollux, it was the 27th such experiment that the United States has conducted since it ended test nuclear explosions in 1992.

You see there is still nuclear testing at Nevada and we still do modeling and testing.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2587...-arnold-ahlert

The Ongoing Tragedy of Post-Apartheid South Africa

The South African government currently estimates there are 31 murders per 100,000 people per year, which comes out to about 50 per day. That ranks the nation above drug cartel-infested Mexico, the nation of Rwanda that endured the slaughter of 800,000 Tutsis and Hutu sympathizers in the ‘90s, and Sudan, where the government of Sudanese President Omer al-Bashir precipitated the mass slaughter and rape of Darfuri men, women and children that continues to this day. That would be the very same Omer al-Bashir the ANC allowed to leave South Africa on June 15, ignoring a pending arrest warrant issued by the International Criminal Court (ICC), which had charged him with multiple counts of genocide and crimes against humanity. In doing so, the ANC violated South Africa’s international legal commitments and its own constitution.

The same stench of ANC corruption applies to the aforementioned murder statistics: outside groups believe the murder rate is actually double that total admitted by the government.

Moreover, white Boer farmers remain a primary target. According to the Times of London, over 4,000 of them were murdered since the end of apartheid in a nation rated six on a scale of eight for genocide by Genocide Watch. Of the 50 murders committed daily, 20 percent of the victims are white, and the black on white murder rate is approximately 95 percent.

The left is and was wrong on testing and they are wrong about what is happening in South Africa. Not that I agree to treating people like sub humans, however if people are acting sub human, what is a country to do?

Originally Posted by shawndoggy

Really?

A: when was the last nuke test at the test site, Delta?
B: apartheid is over, buddy, in case you didn't hear the news.

You seem to think a protest is no good if it doesn't directly result in an immediate concession. To the contrary, protests can be turning points in the way our culture sees things. MLK's "I Have a Dream" speech and Kent State come to mind.

Boston Tea Party, Remember the Alamo, and all that.

Don't forget Hilary losing the election because of the violent leftists protesting.

The trend I see is leftists are never happy about any position the country is in. I don't remember a year where some leftist were not out holding their breath over something and protesting. I would say for a protest to mean something, it should be rare and not the way. Right now protests are the way and all they are doing is making people angry. The protests are in support of lawlessness and nothing to do with fairness. They are well funded events help by billionaries to try and gain political power. They are not in the least grass roots.

Originally Posted by deltahoosier

Wakeboarding and water skiing. Both use water and both use a boat and both use a rope and handle. I would never call them the same.

I'm glad you found this fun, i enjoy this too.

Correct they are not the same but they are both watersports. Watersport is the group, skiing/wakeboarding is the subset.

Christians of all denominations share a lot of commonly held beliefs but for some reason they jump at the chance to mock each other

Originally Posted by markj

I'm not sure that you understand Delta's argument or that you even read it. There are VAST differences between Catholics and Protestants. Your metaphor doesn't work. I'll let Delta speak for himself though.

Yes, read and understood. Not sure you can say the same

Originally Posted by ralph

Christians of all denominations share a lot of commonly held beliefs but for some reason they jump at the chance to mock each other

And if there's one thing all y'all can agree on it's that Mormons are at the bottom, right?

So in that light, whatcha think of this Romney-as-Secretary-of-State trial balloon that's getting floated today?

To me I much prefer a Romney as SoS to Guiliani, Bolton, or Sessions (the other names I've heard mentioned).

Originally Posted by ralph

I'm not sure if you understand my argument?
Here is a metaphor, the bible loves these things so it should illuminate what I am trying to say.
You have a waterskier and a wakeboard. Both think they are Watersports.
Waterskier says to wakeboarder, you don't do watersports because you stand sideways, Waterskiers stand front on. That is the only way to do watersports.

This is your mentality. The details around why you have to stand front on is irrelevant, both are water sports.

Okay so basically most democrats tube?

Originally Posted by shawndoggy

And if there's one thing all y'all can agree on it's that Mormons are at the bottom, right?

So in that light, whatcha think of this Romney-as-Secretary-of-State trial balloon that's getting floated today?

To me I much prefer a Romney as SoS to Guiliani, Bolton, or Sessions (the other names I've heard mentioned).

Don't agree doctrine wise with Mormons, however the ones I know are outstanding people. I don't have an issue with him. Very proper. Diplomatic. Smart. Understands economy and politics. I think he would do a good job representing us.

Originally Posted by deltahoosier

Don't agree doctrine wise with Mormons, however the ones I know are outstanding people. I don't have an issue with him. Very proper. Diplomatic. Smart. Understands economy and politics. I think he would do a good job representing us.

I concur 100%.

Originally Posted by stevo8290

okay so basically most democrats tube?

lol!!!

Originally Posted by ralph

Yes, read and understood. Not sure you can say the same

I absolutely understand. Just ask a Catholic and a protestant "who is the head of the church?"

For the record and at the risk of sounding like a hater, mormonism is a cult.

Originally Posted by markj

I absolutely understand. Just ask a Catholic and a protestant "who is the head of the church?"

No, don't think you do otherwise you wouldn't ask that question like the answer has any relevance.

Any religion which follows their interpretation of Christs teachings is Christian. Whether their interpretation is "right", "wrong" or different is irrelevant.

Originally Posted by markj

For the record and at the risk of sounding like a hater, mormonism is a cult.

So are protestants, the only difference is time. (at the risk of sounding like a hater)

They both took an existing religion, and twisted it around and said "God likes it better this way" .

As far as cults go, the Mormons I know have all been pretty decent honest people.

And if you go back far enough so are Catholics. When they started as an offshoot of Judeaism.

Cult+time+members=bonified religion

All the Mormons I have met are good people too, they are doing something right

Originally Posted by markj

For the record and at the risk of sounding like a hater, mormonism is a cult.

THAT'S what I'm talking about! Spread the love!

Woman covering her head with a scarf because she suffers from Lupus gets a nice note and a busted window (and stolen purse):

"Hijab wearing bitch this is our nation now get the f*** out"

Damn liberals are at it again, right across the bay from you Grant, faking crime to make Trumpsters look bad!


http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local...401491465.html

Originally Posted by pesos

Woman covering her head with a scarf because she suffers from Lupus gets a nice note and a busted window (and stolen purse):

"Hijab wearing bitch this is our nation now get the f*** out"

Damn liberals are at it again, right across the bay from you Grant, faking crime to make Trumpsters look bad!


http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local...401491465.html

Haha! I bet it is... Come on man, buckle your seat belt and keep your hands inside the ride. We're rolling conservative now...

Plus we gotta get back the 10 trillion you boy spent..

You are a piece of s***, sir, to laugh at such a circumstance.

Originally Posted by plhorn

So are protestants, the only difference is time. (at the risk of sounding like a hater)

They both took an existing religion, and twisted it around and said "God likes it better this way" .

As far as cults go, the Mormons I know have all been pretty decent honest people.

And if you go back far enough so are Catholics. When they started as an offshoot of Judeaism.

Cult+time+members=bonified religion

You are utterly wrong. I don't even know where to start. Dang, I feel guilty that I don't have the time to address this properly right now.

Originally Posted by VanillaGorilla

Haha! I bet it is... Come on man, buckle your seat belt and keep your hands inside the ride. We're rolling conservative now...

Plus we gotta get back the 10 trillion you boy spent..

Man... what?

This thread never appears to.....well, yea....it just did.

Hello? The election is over. How long will you gentleman continue to try and change opinions written in stone?

Originally Posted by markj

You are utterly wrong. I don't even know where to start. Dang, I feel guilty that I don't have the time to address this properly right now.

It is always hard to start arguing against simple logic. I will wait patiently for you to find the time to respond. But for the record starting with "my religion isn't a cult because the bible says..." is circular reasoning so lets not go down that tired path.

Originally Posted by cwb4me

Hello? The election is over. How long will you gentleman continue to try and change opinions written in stone?

I don't come here in the hopes of changing anyone's opinion. I just want to try to understand what the other side is thinking, while trying to get them to understand what I am thinking. At the end I might disagree, but at least I can understand where they are coming from.

And while I'm here, here more liberals pretending to be racist Trump supporters, probably paid by Clinton's secret gold stolen from a bengazi safe, as a bribe for selling out our small town values: its all in the emails that the feds aren't releasing because of the secret society that controls everything.

http://time.com/4573130/racist-incid...s/?xid=fbshare
"There Have Now Been More Than 400 Racist Incidents in the U.S. Since Election Day"

Originally Posted by deltahoosier

Don't forget Hilary losing the election because of the violent leftists protesting.

The trend I see is leftists are never happy about any position the country is in. I don't remember a year where some leftist were not out holding their breath over something and protesting. I would say for a protest to mean something, it should be rare and not the way. Right now protests are the way and all they are doing is making people angry. The protests are in support of lawlessness and nothing to do with fairness. They are well funded events help by billionaries to try and gain political power. They are not in the least grass roots.

Agreed, on both points.

As I dug deeper into the issue on why ISPs are against net neutrality I found out they know under current FCC regulations their subscription base is contingent upon live TV IE sporting events, news, award shows, etc. As soon as a netflix (VOD provider) esq company makes headway the ISPs cable subscription business will loose most of its value prop.

My cable bill includes high speed internet w/ a static IP, 2 set-top boxes w/ the network package. My bill is $210 a month +Netflix, +Showtime Anytime, +HBO Go. If a web based company came long (maybe Amazon) that offered me NFL, Network News, Viceland, Discovery, and NatGeo without having to buy Telemundo, Lifetime, Bravo, MTV, and about 120 Others, then Time Warner could eat a dick and I would start paying for Internet only for $90 + the fee for this mythical web based provider that gives me only what I want.

Without Net Neutrality ISPs will keep these companies from springing up and us locked into 200+ channels, Home phone, and internet for a premium.

"Trump settles Trump University lawsuits for $25m"
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38021820

This is our President... sigh.

Who cares about fraud and corruption and screwing over the little guy - he's gonna make america great again!

Guys, he's settling. It's actually a GOOD thing. Smart decision and shows he's taking his lawyers' advice.

Absolutely, don't disagree. The point is the hilarity that is calling Clinton corrupt and Trump "a good businessman."

I'm really not worried about his past business dealings at this point. A strategically located minority of the American people gave him a pass on that. Closing out this "hanging chad" in his personal/business life is good business and it's good for the country. And you've gotta know he also paid through the nose. Winning the presidency isn't good for your negotiating leverage in a potentially embarrassing lawsuit.

There's going to be PLENTY to scrutinize under a Trump admin moving fwd.

Clinton IS corrupt.....

haha trying to look for silver linings here, and sorry to say Cliff, the statute of limitations on "it's Clinton's fault" has expired. Stick to blaming Obama.

Originally Posted by doublemwa

Agreed, on both points.

As I dug deeper into the issue on why ISPs are against net neutrality I found out they know under current FCC regulations their subscription base is contingent upon live TV IE sporting events, news, award shows, etc. As soon as a netflix (VOD provider) esq company makes headway the ISPs cable subscription business will loose most of its value prop.

My cable bill includes high speed internet w/ a static IP, 2 set-top boxes w/ the network package. My bill is $210 a month +Netflix, +Showtime Anytime, +HBO Go. If a web based company came long (maybe Amazon) that offered me NFL, Network News, Viceland, Discovery, and NatGeo without having to buy Telemundo, Lifetime, Bravo, MTV, and about 120 Others, then Time Warner could eat a dick and I would start paying for Internet only for $90 + the fee for this mythical web based provider that gives me only what I want.

Without Net Neutrality ISPs will keep these companies from springing up and us locked into 200+ channels, Home phone, and internet for a premium.

I dont like you much but i will offer you this. Not sure who your provider is for what you have. Call customer service and tell them you want to cancel because of price and are going to xxx provider. they will sharpen their pencil to keep your business. I have Comcast - 4 H1 hi def interactive boxes, 4 regular hd boxes, 100mb with static ip. Also have the full movie package hbo, showrime, cinamax etc. plus pac 12 networks, nfl and red zone 220.00 month. Also get live streaming sports and acces to all comcast wifi. Would be almost 400.00 a month at regular cost. Off topic but wanted to share

Originally Posted by plhorn

"There Have Now Been More Than 400 Racist Incidents in the U.S. Since Election Day"

There have been over 200 shootings in wonderful, liberal, sanctuary city, toughest gun laws Chicago in the same time period. You should be worried about that.

Old saying in DC... When a liberal starts calling you a racist it just means they're losing an argument.

for the record I've never called anyone on wakeworld a racist, I'm just pointing out that you are on the same side as people who are.

Originally Posted by plhorn

for the record I've never called anyone on wakeworld a racist, I'm just pointing out that you are on the same side as people who are.

No worries, I didn't mean for my post to sound like I thought you did. I meant it as a generalization.

Doesn't it bother you Trump supporters that he is "draining the swamp" by filling his cabinet with lobbyists?

Originally Posted by plhorn

Doesn't it bother you Trump supporters that he is "draining the swamp" by filling his cabinet with lobbyists?

Got to make America great again somehow.

Originally Posted by Cabledog

I dont like you much but i will offer you this. Not sure who your provider is for what you have. Call customer service and tell them you want to cancel because of price and are going to xxx provider. they will sharpen their pencil to keep your business. I have Comcast - 4 H1 hi def interactive boxes, 4 regular hd boxes, 100mb with static ip. Also have the full movie package hbo, showrime, cinamax etc. plus pac 12 networks, nfl and red zone 220.00 month. Also get live streaming sports and acces to all comcast wifi. Would be almost 400.00 a month at regular cost. Off topic but wanted to share

It's no wonder you don't like me. You're a real genius with that revolutionary idea, can't believe after all these years I didn't think of that.

Originally Posted by doublemwa

It's no wonder you don't like me. You're a real genius with that revolutionary idea, can't believe after all these years I didn't think of that.

I'm not the one paying too much dick wad. Why do I have twice the service for less than what you are paying?

Do you think Trump will follow through with 45% trade tariff on China? Do you think it would be a good thing for America?

Originally Posted by Cabledog

I'm not the one paying too much dick wad. Why do I have twice the service for less than what you are paying?

......where do you live?

Originally Posted by ralph

Do you think Trump will follow through with 45% trade tariff on China? Do you think it would be a good thing for America?

Here are few I thought were interesting:

http://fortune.com/2016/11/10/donald-trump-china-trade/

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...what-could-im/

So far Trumps cabinet appointments should be frightening for both the left and right.

He's appointed two guys to the FCC transition that are against net neutrality. No-one is against net-neutrality unless they own COMCAST or Timewarner, the consistently most hated companies in America.
His EPA guy wants to do away with the endangered species act and put federal land into state control. Go look at satellite images of Oregon state parks vs national parks to see that the state parks are all getting clear cut. Last I checked Republicans still like hunting so that should bother them as much as tree huggers.

LOL, the knuckle draggers were all impressed when Trump said he'd forgo his salary. Now they are conspicuously silent about it costing a $1M per day for SS so his wife doesn't have to move into that low rent WH.

Ok to back things up and look at the overall picture. I like what or how Trump is transitioning, Example when on the campaign trail "Build a Wall, Mass Deportations, Temporary ban on Muslim immigrants" Throw Hillary in Jail were all part of the pre-Fight jibber jabber. Of corse this is just my 2c but if you look at the campaign trail like 2 fighters going after each other they say some pretty harsh things about each other leading up to the fight/ellection but when the fight is over they hug shake hands and drop the hate. Perhaps I'm looking into it to much but that's how I see it. The media seems to be making a big deal out of the fact that Trump is walking back on some of his campaign promises, Like getting a special prosecutor to go after Hillary, I think that's great how does going after Hillary advance America? One could argue that smashing corruption is never a bad Idea, But let's face it Hillary got KO'd the fight is over let's shake hands and move forward. I think that's what a true professional can do is after the fight build a bridge and work with people that you were once in a bitter dispute with.

Originally Posted by grant_west

Ok to back things up and look at the overall picture. I like what or how Trump is transitioning, Example when on the campaign trail "Build a Wall, Mass Deportations, Temporary ban on Muslim immigrants" Throw Hillary in Jail were all part of the pre-Fight jibber jabber. Of corse this is just my 2c but if you look at the campaign trail like 2 fighters going after each other they say some pretty harsh things about each other leading up to the fight/ellection but when the fight is over they hug shake hands and drop the hate. Perhaps I'm looking into it to much but that's how I see it. The media seems to be making a big deal out of the fact that Trump is walking back on some of his campaign promises, Like getting a special prosecutor to go after Hillary, I think that's great how does going after Hillary advance America? One could argue that smashing corruption is never a bad Idea, But let's face it Hillary got KO'd the fight is over let's shake hands and move forward. I think that's what a true professional can do is after the fight build a bridge and work with people that you were once in a bitter dispute with.

I agree with the result (you don't prosecute a political opponent in USA), but the method still smells terrible. It's not something a legitimate presidential candidate should ever even say. We don't elect strongmen here who shut down the free press and jail the opposition. That's for venezuela or Russia, not America.

Like I said I do agree with the result and I'm glad he's not quite as crazy as he said he was.

Time heals all wounds. But all the posting in the world won't change people's minds on who they favor or vote for.Haven't we beaten this dead horse to death a dozen times?

^^^ I agree and that's fine^^^
We can't all agree, but I'm convinced the Media fuels or Stokes's the devide. Main stream media puts story's out in a way NOT to covey the truth but sell the story. Fcausing a further devide. Look at all the Fake news that was posted I was even guilty of it. It was designed to draw Lines in the sand. I love how the media is all up in arms that Trump has not had a news conference. This is just my opinion but BFD. I would rather see a you tube video of the president and hear his or her message with out all the Spin before and After. I don't need the media to tell me how I should feel about what I just heard.

Originally Posted by cwb4me

Time heals all wounds. But all the posting in the world won't change people's minds on who they favor or vote for.Haven't we beaten this dead horse to death a dozen times?

Nobody makes you post in or read this thread, Robert.

Originally Posted by grant_west

^^^ I agree and that's fine^^^
We can't all agree, but I'm convinced the Media fuels or Stokes's the devide. Main stream media puts story's out in a way NOT to covey the truth but sell the story. Fcausing a further devide. Look at all the Fake news that was posted I was even guilty of it. It was designed to draw Lines in the sand. I love how the media is all up in arms that Trump has not had a news conference. This is just my opinion but BFD. I would rather see a you tube video of the president and hear his or her message with out all the Spin before and After. I don't need the media to tell me how I should feel about what I just heard.

Grant I don't think you can use the existence of fake news to indict legit news outlets. "Some news is fake, therefore no news can be trusted" makes no sense.

If you see the youtube video you don't think the press can add value by calling BS on lies? Seems to me that's an essential value-add by the press. Individual listeners cannot be expected to factcheck every statement every time.

Shawn: Quick question you have seen all the Racist Grafitti supporting Trump. What percentage of that graffiti do you think is being done but Trump Supporters?

The problem with the media is what can you trust??

Too many people rely on CNN, CBS, ABC, MSNBC, NBC, NY Times, Time, Huffington, MTV, HBO, BET, Comedy Central, Fox, Brietbart, and many others etc.. as their trusted news source.... and all are well known for being biased... and in some cases extremely biased to one side or the other.

Heck.. even Twitter, Google, and Facebook have been shown to be biased.

If you get all of your news from one source.. you are missing half the story.. and as was mentioned, the media is creating this large divide.

They create the story and tell you how you should feel about it instead of just reporting the news and letting you decide.

Originally Posted by grant_west

Shawn: Quick question you have seen all the Racist Grafitti supporting Trump. What percentage of that graffiti do you think is being done but Trump Supporters?

Does that mean that the "F Trump" graffiti I saw a couple of days ago is Trump Supporters doing a double reverse?

Hey not trying to Prove anyone wrong just looking for your opinion. I'll give you mine. Wait let me put on my tin foil hat. Ok I believe most "if not all" the graffiti you see
Is Anti Trump supporters & Crybabies seeking attention. I have seen way more VIDEOs of blacks beating down for simply being Trump supporters Then any actual Trump supporters doing all this alleged graffiti. Not saying in any way all Trump supporters are angles I'm sure their are some ligit roaches in the ranks but Me personally I don't believe any of it it's all just propaganda to me.

Arguing over who is making graffiti has got to be the most important issue of the day. Think of how great America will be once we get that question answered.