leh-nerd skin-erd

You have some sack son! The equities market ebbs and flows with emotion, and that's the problem at times. In that regard, you're feeling exactly the way many other people feel. I'm primarily interested in dividend paying stocks in a brokerage account, don't deviate much from that and try to remove the emotion from the equation. I've gotten better at that as I've gotten older and realize that I'm no smarter when I have a good run and not all that much dumber when i don't. I'm not particularly creative when it comes to chasing hot money stocks or ideas, respect people who do but it just isn't me. On the other hand, I think it's important that we know who we are...who we really are when it comes to risk, time horizon and expectations. There is no shame imo when an individual of any age decides to push themselves away from the table, though mathematically speaking odds of success improve over the long haul in the equities market. In addition, with increased life expectancy comes the need to be honest with our needs. I'm planning to be around until 85ish, plan to have a bit of fun until o can't any longer, and want legacy money for my children if possible. An interesting book on this subject is "Simple Wealth, Inevitable Wealth" by Nick Murray. Spoiler alert....I don't recall any mention of buying the stock of any companies building cell towers in the Mongolian Sea. Have a great weekend, and with your recent change in fortune is it too early to suggest buying margarine, powdered milk and keystone beer?

Juror # 8... I'm a simple beet farmer, so I'm confused as to how Juror #7 lost $64,980 in "liquid cash". Did someone find his stash of Mason jars?

of course. the kids are disposable, the parents are disposable, at least until such time until they are useful, then the narrative reaches a fever pitch. that's the insidious part about the open border crowd.

Like many patriot fans I know as deflategate came to a satisfying conclusion.

Corruption at the highest level of the government, undone by the will of strong American individuals branded as despicable, racists, homophobes and a President tough (or crazy) enough to say "Go ^%$# yourself". At the same time, these folks rejected the notion of 'the next chosen one" or "the heir apparent" when they knew with absolute certainty that they were being sold a pig in sheep's clothing. Count among them the not-Trump but most-definitely-not-clinton crowd. what an amazing time to be alive. At the same time, are some of these operatives and political hatchet men among the dumbest people on the planet? There is a trail a mile long with fingerprints of all the key players easily identifiable. We're so used to saying the big dogs generally escape any major harm, but in this case, some major players are being knocked around like ping pong balls, if ping pong balls were despicable scumbags that seek total world dominance.

Thanks, but don't go out of your way. I'm caucasian but I tan up a bit in the summer. That makes me disposable, and in that regard, I'm similar to the people we're discussing here. How is that for irony. Now, if you know the Kardashians maybe we have a shot.

because they don't care about the families, they don't care about the children, and they don't care about what happens to them. they are pawns in a political game that has gone on for decades. It's shameful, and the game now goes on. Faux outrage from senators of all stripes will show up on camera, neatly dressed and made up, making sure the camera catches their good side, and speak passionately about the children all while knowing the policies (or lack thereof) result in suffering, abuse, sexual exploitation, and death to...hundreds of thousands? millions? meanwhile, simple folk at home see crying babies on the TV, and think that's the real problem. Next time I go to Canada with my kids, I think I'll stop the car just short of the entry point, hop out and make a run for it. When they catch me I'll just tell them I wanted to grab a few prescriptions but thought waiting lines were for suckers. I'm sure my kids will be brought to me immediately.

Spitzer..cuomo...schneiderman...skelos...silver and on and on it goes. Let's take bets on the new AG. i predict she was a drug mule foe El Chappo. this state is a rats nest of corruption, but yeah, trumps foundation is the problem in 2007.

watching the leftys, known for their vocal and inherent distrust of all things law enforcement, bend over backwards to defend corrupt law enforcement is worth it's weight in gold. it reaffirms my belief that if someone stands for nothing, in spite of all the moral indignation and expressed outrage, they just end of being the b$tch of someone else who uses them and then moves on. it's amazing to to think that Donald Trump...Donald Trump for God's sake....may well end up the best thing that ever happened to the American political process. Who saw that coming?

Absolutely true on the first part. Comey decided to carve a path, creating new procedures and deviating from what he was entrusted to do. He was a weak leader, and what happened on his watch was a national disgrace. Some things are complicated, but at the end of the day, it's no different than filling the slurpy machine at the 7-11. Do your job the way your job is supposed to be done. let the chips fall where they may. If Loretta Lynch f#@!ed up in her role, that's her problem, not yours.

Two thoughts: 1. So over the past couple months, as I have read and followed your posts, it's always with a cynics perspective There's a part of my 50+ year old mindset that figures the big dogs always walk free, a few mid and low level guys do some short time and it all amounts to political theater. As I've tried to follow the logic of the game within the game (what is mueller reallllly doing, and sessions, what's the real deal there), I keep coming back to the same argument I have when I'm near 100% convinced that the NFL is tilted toward a desired outcome----there are just so many dominos that have to fall for it to play out as one large operation sweep-it-clean. On the other hand, with some positive things happening economically and a general shift in confidence of many Americans, coupled with Trumps silence on the issue of late...I'm hopeful you're on the right path. 2. With all the work you've put in---and thanks for that, at a minimum it's been very enlightening and awfully well-done---it's pretty obvious that I'm actually the epicenter of getting s#/+ done up in here. One simple entry about not redacting the IG report and you literally hear from a source it's playing out that way? I'm a #%#^ing steamroller. Tomorrow should be fun.

This whole redaction issue annoys the heck out of me. Most certainly protects those that need protection, but beyond that, let's open this up and get to it. None of the key players will suddenly cop to wrongdoing, Clinton inc will not see the light, and the opposition will continue to suggest the other guy is always the problem. Trump has done a good job of changing the narrative of ghosts of republicans past (just shut up and take it!) and is going to throw haymakers anyway. I hope you're correct on the Exec Order, and think that you are. Declassifying provides something for us all.

I read OC in Buff but in my head it's all J. Peterman.

$#@!ing bigots. All Marco' s must be Italian explorers? How uncomfortable would it be for Marco Goldstein if he was just grabbing lunch for all the accountants at the office? I hate the small-minded who walk among us.

I think the term is "MILF", and based on my research they seem to be getting along just fine.

I directly answered your question, then clarified for content when you struggled with my answer. In a seperate and distinct paragraph, I engaged in an extension of the discussion based on a seperate issue that seemed important to you. That you disagree with me does not equate to obfuscation on my part, it equates to at best a disagreement between two individuals on that particular issue, or at worst, specious reasoning on your part. Anyway, I understand your reluctance to discuss the hypocrisy issue that you raised as part of your analysis. At the risk of being bold, but to ensure clarity: I think you appeared timorous when you refused to acknowledge or respond to an issue you raised. Tiberious = Timorous? Time to move on. Your boy comey is going down like a sweet muffin.

Correctamundo Potsy! President Trump was transparent in submitting the tax returns as required by law, and in choosing not to release them as is his right as a citizen. He showed great courage in going against the grain as you surely must acknowledge. Transparent to the second power. Voters considered that issue, as is their right, and clearly saw it as no big deal as he cruised to victory. And your thoughts on hypocrisy of political candidates since 1960, since you brought it up? I'm willing to go back further, but you seem hyper-fixated on one relatively brief period of time from 1960-2016.

he's been transparent. but let's move on. did we agree on the hypocrisy of all candidates, or are you holding the line ok "your guys good, everyone else bad"? I'm trying to figure out how extreme you are relative to Belle Fourche. I've got you in Alaska right now.

We were discussing transparency, and now you've opted to move away from that? He transparently filed his taxes. That is not in dispute. He opted not to release his returns, which is clearly his right, and he was transparent on his decision. That is also not in dispute. The only issue in dispute is your unfounded allegation that evidence of compliance is evidence of wrongdoing, and that's a very shallow and egregiously biased take. Hypocrisy has nothing to do with it, and we can agree that every candidate since like the 17whatevers has been guilty of that. i find his candor on hypocrisy refreshing.

Transparency is a subjective concept, and you run the risk of appearing a zealot when you imply otherwise. For every "Trump won't release his tax return" there is a "Obama won't release his birth certificate", "Obama won't release his college transcripts" or "Hillary and Bill sure seem to know a lot of dead people who were formerly alive".* I believe a properly filed tax return with appropriate payments to the designated tax agency that accepts the return with/without modification reflects the only transparency that matters. I feel that way about our President Trump, former presidents Obama, Young Bush, Clinton, Old Bush, and Nearly president and Almost Facebook CEO Hillary Clinton. More importantly, I guess, is that I support President Trump's right as a citizen to pursue life, liberty and happiness. If it makes him happy to NOT provide his tax returns, and keeps him free from the tyranny of baseless innuendo from his enemies, then justice prevails and we are all better for it. Even you, sir. Signed, Lynd-ar-skin-ard (sounds like a Swedish tribute band) *Bill and Hillary sure do seem to know a lot of dead people who were formerly alive.

Yes, agreed. I enjoyed when he told them to stuff it. I don't follow the logic that submitting a tax return to the appropriate regulatory body, having them review and adjust it as they see fit, somehow skirts transparency. Just the opposite in fact. I understand why Trump Haters would say that, but it's a silly argument. Its like saying you have registered your car, so you must have a dwi that you're hiding. So there's no confusion for the liberals among us, substitute "your mom's car" in the above example as needed.

Why is it always about Hillary with you? She's home on the couch with her feet up. Time to move on. I'm not certain you understand the meaning of the word "obviously". Your President Trump filed his tax returns, any discrepancies would be between Your President Trump and the IRS. That's the only transparency that really matters, right?

My thoughts exactly. On the other hand if Rachel Maddow and MSNBC isn't up to the task of showing he's a tax cheat based on their thorough investigation, how could a lonely message board soldier ever hope to find anything? His lawfully filed tax return(s) would tell us what he's hiding? Wouldn't it be not hidden (or transparent) if it showed something?

Why would he release his taxes? What would that tell you?

You suggested racism was a post-2010 policy of the government, and cited a republican (presumably) majority leader was hoping the democrat president was gone after his first term. I don't ever recall leadership from any party publically cheering on a president from the opposite party to win reelection. I thought that was the point of being from a different party. Its like the cereal wars: Captain Crunch isn't out telling kids to buy up all the Count Chokula, but I don't think that makes him a racist. Worst....civics lesson....ever.