Trump is willing to try a coup (or anything else), but that would take more guts than any of his yes-men have.
Trump is willing to try a coup (or anything else), but that would take more guts than any of his yes-men have.
Flagpole wrote:
Fishy Fishy wrote:
And we are led to believe that despite barely making a living wage through a lifetime of low paying and no paying jobs, coupled with his recent revelation that his wife has only held a full-time job for at max 8 years of her life, he has been able to amass a fortune in the stock market. :)
I (my wife and I) started investing in 1989 when the Dow was at 2,700. She was in graduate school at Stanford, but she received full tuition and a stipend, so basically they paid her to be in that Ph.D. program. This is par for the course for those in a science. My full-time job then was working as a newspaper reporter and food critic during that time. We invested half our salary the first 7 years of our marriage. Student housing on Stanford's campus was cheap. We had one car and no kids. She got all of her college paid for except one year of graduate school getting her second degree, so we didn't have much student loan debt.
When we had our first kid, I was the sole bread winner beginning then and going on for 15 years. During this time we started at 5% investing but quickly got it back up to over 20% of our income as we moved back to Ohio for a lower cost of living and I made more money. We currently invest about 35% of our income (retirement and non-retirement accounts), but we could do more. When she went back to work, we threw money at the house to get it paid off, and then we had two kids in college. We actually don't need to invest at all anymore because we have more than enough for when we retire. We continue to because we don't need the extra now, and we will find fun things to do with even more money later on.
How did we do this? First of all, I was making decent money for Ohio even back in the late 90s. Second of all, we owned used cars and didn't have cable television for years (we now again don't have it because...Netflix). We didn't waste money.
If you take two professional people and invest half their income for the first 7 years of their marriage, that alone brings a decent sum at retirement, but we have done a LOT more than that.
It's not about what you make. It's about what you spend and what you invest.
See, where your story falls apart is that 50%, 20%, 35%, etc. of "not a lot" is not very much. In order to save and invest money, you have to make a reasonable amount of money. Your (and your wife's) work history demonstrates that you have never made much money. Even living without much expenses, there would not be much to invest. As the other poster said, you've been "busted" by your own words. Sorry. It's not up for debate.
jesseriley wrote:
Trump is willing to try a coup (or anything else), but that would take more guts than any of his yes-men have.
Trump will fire the gutless. He still has Stephen Miller, McConnell, Jared, Ivanka, Donald Jr., Devin Nunes, and such he can install as "temporary" people in charge to get a coup done.
U lost wrote:
A. Reason wrote:
Yeah. Better get him back on topic. This discussion isn't going well for him.
Sally, Rigged and you (and all of you posting names) have given up and lost.
FYI: Your posts are ignored, and not read by most of the people on the thread. You are wasting your time.
You're reading them, Flagpole. That's all we care about.
Wee Willie wrote:
Breast Work wrote:
Some of Flagpole's finest work.
https://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=164906I especially love this gem of a post.
dfdfsf,
If you take issue with that, then you are obviously insecure about your times which is a clear indication that you would have lost to me anytime anywhere. The fact of the matter is that I was in my prime a better runner than most of you. Sorry if that bugs you, but it's a fact. I'm also a better piano player than probably all of you, but also a worse artist than all of you. We all have our strengths and weaknesses. Let's summarize mine:
1) I was a better runner in my prime than the great majority of those who post here.
2) I am a better keyboard (piano) player than all of you - almost assuredly.
3) I am a better writer than just about all of you.
4) I am generally smarter than just about all of you.
5) I can't draw worth a damn and therefore am probably the worst artist here.
Sorry that that bothers you. I'm willing to accept that there are better runner than me - Kevin Sullivan is better. Scott Fry is better (although he did duck me by DQing when I was in my high school prime, but I think I've told that story here before). JEH is a better marathoner than me. You then should be able to accept that there are runners better than you.
One of the problems some of you people have is that you believe me to be arrogant. Flagpole doesn't deal in arrogance. I only deal in what is or what isn't.
My favorite is this one...
1) Overweight? I guess if 5'4" and 137 pounds is overweight, then ok. I could stand to lose 5 pounds maybe, but since I'm more muscular than the average distance runner, I'm not really carying that much fat - now in 2000 when I was 181 pounds, that was a different story.
5'4" 137
This explains a lot.
Big case of "little man syndrome."
Hmmmmmm wrote:
Technial (sic) Writer - "According to PayScale, the median entry-level technical writer salary is $50,647, as of July 2018" Which is techinally (sic) more than 50K - you got me. ;-)
Did you have 20 years of teaching experience when you were a teacher? No? Anyway here's the min/max/avg for Ohio $46,562 $71,600 $56,435 - $56K avg. - I guess you got me there too.
"The base salary for Instructor - Computer Science ranges from $48,063 to $83,714 with the average base salary of $56,978" - $57K - you got me there. However, those are salaries for people with a BS in Computer Science. Do you have a BS in CS?
You got me. Perhaps I should have said $60K. I apologize unreservedly.
Care to post what YOU made for those positions?
Dude, why would I do that? You already have shown you have no idea how much certain jobs pay. Why would you then be trusted to know what a salary in 1998 or 2004 in Central Ohio meant? I made very good money for the jobs I had. It wasn't about the salary though. If my salary were smaller, we would have bought a town house or just a cheaper house. The idea is to invest not just a certain percentage of your income each year, but hopefully a certain dollar amount. The VAST MAJORITY of people do not invest enough, and almost half do not invest at all.
When I started investing 30 years ago (uninterrupted by the way), the Dow was at 2,700. My investments have brought in just over 10% annually on average since then (including 19% YTD before the bad day today). Everything was always reinvested. I haven't taken a penny out.
I certainly hope McConMan will participate in the coup. It could be the slowest perp walk in history.
Make America Great Again wrote:
Runningart2004 wrote:
But does the statute specifically forbid it from release? It doesn’t does it? And couldn’t they hold a closed door session to discus the unredacted report? Why did Starr’s report contain confidential grand jury testimony?
Ken Starr was appointed under a different statute and had different authority. The Special Counsel law changed after him, partly because of his overreach.
Starr was also required under the old law to submit a report to the Congress. The cureent law requires Mueller to submit a confidential report to the AG. This point was repeated over and over on this thread, but you choose to ignore.
Starr report contained grand jury material because he asked the court to declassify it. Barr could ask the court the same thing, but he is not required to. It's entirely up to him.
You realize you are arguing for Congress NOT to see the full report and arguing for no testifying by major players. Why? Because you know any of that is just bad for Trump. He's a criminal, and you know it.
Shame on you for supporting him.
big little man wrote:
Wee Willie wrote:
My favorite is this one...
5'4" 137
This explains a lot.
Big case of "little man syndrome."
Yes.
This explains the insecurity, the exaggerations, the lying to try to make him look successful/intelligent/wealthy, etc.
Big 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 wrote:
McKinsey wrote:
Not relevant.
Try to post something relevant.
You're an idiot. That's quite relevant (and apparent).
INCORRECT!
Try to post something that is correct.
Racket wrote:
Hmmmmmm wrote:
"The base salary for Instructor - Computer Science ranges from $48,063 to $83,714 with the average base salary of $56,978" - $57K - you got me there. However, those are salaries for people with a BS in Computer Science. Do you have a BS in CS?
You don't need a BS in Computer Science. It's not difficult to bullsh!t some idiot mid-level exec into paying out the wazoo for a whole bunch of meaningless and trivial computer training to low level employees. It's more about being a good salesman than anything else.
Either the execs are clueless and willing to pay a lot of money to the person who can drop a lot of buzz words or they already know how to get it done themselves.
You definitely do not have to have a degree in Computer Science, but if you work for a reputable computer training company and you want to make more, you should have certain certifications. Microsoft has several. Back in the day, I was a Novell Networks certified trainer among other things. Certifications bring more money.
Trump may fire another FBI Director for not covering for him.
Christopher Wray's days are numbered.
Opus3 wrote:
big little man wrote:
Big case of "little man syndrome."
Yes.
This explains the insecurity, the exaggerations, the lying to try to make him look successful/intelligent/wealthy, etc.
I dunno, Trump is a pretty big guy.
little big man wrote:
Opus3 wrote:
Yes.
This explains the insecurity, the exaggerations, the lying to try to make him look successful/intelligent/wealthy, etc.
I dunno, Trump is a pretty big guy.
Amazing that they have so much in common in terms of personality.
Flagpole wrote:
Fishy Fishy wrote:
And we are led to believe that despite barely making a living wage through a lifetime of low paying and no paying jobs, coupled with his recent revelation that his wife has only held a full-time job for at max 8 years of her life, he has been able to amass a fortune in the stock market. :)
I (my wife and I) started investing in 1989 when the Dow was at 2,700. She was in graduate school at Stanford, but she received full tuition and a stipend, so basically they paid her to be in that Ph.D. program. This is par for the course for those in a science. My full-time job then was working as a newspaper reporter and food critic during that time. We invested half our salary the first 7 years of our marriage. Student housing on Stanford's campus was cheap. We had one car and no kids. She got all of her college paid for except one year of graduate school getting her second degree, so we didn't have much student loan debt.
When we had our first kid, I was the sole bread winner beginning then and going on for 15 years. During this time we started at 5% investing but quickly got it back up to over 20% of our income as we moved back to Ohio for a lower cost of living and I made more money. We currently invest about 35% of our income (retirement and non-retirement accounts), but we could do more. When she went back to work, we threw money at the house to get it paid off, and then we had two kids in college. We actually don't need to invest at all anymore because we have more than enough for when we retire. We continue to because we don't need the extra now, and we will find fun things to do with even more money later on.
How did we do this? First of all, I was making decent money for Ohio even back in the late 90s. Second of all, we owned used cars and didn't have cable television for years (we now again don't have it because...Netflix). We didn't waste money.
If you take two professional people and invest half their income for the first 7 years of their marriage, that alone brings a decent sum at retirement, but we have done a LOT more than that.
It's not about what you make. It's about what you spend and what you invest.
Hard to keep up with all the lies, ain’t it brother.
Bro, Bro, Bro wrote:
Flagpole wrote:
I (my wife and I) started investing in 1989 when the Dow was at 2,700. She was in graduate school at Stanford, but she received full tuition and a stipend, so basically they paid her to be in that Ph.D. program. This is par for the course for those in a science. My full-time job then was working as a newspaper reporter and food critic during that time. We invested half our salary the first 7 years of our marriage. Student housing on Stanford's campus was cheap. We had one car and no kids. She got all of her college paid for except one year of graduate school getting her second degree, so we didn't have much student loan debt.
When we had our first kid, I was the sole bread winner beginning then and going on for 15 years. During this time we started at 5% investing but quickly got it back up to over 20% of our income as we moved back to Ohio for a lower cost of living and I made more money. We currently invest about 35% of our income (retirement and non-retirement accounts), but we could do more. When she went back to work, we threw money at the house to get it paid off, and then we had two kids in college. We actually don't need to invest at all anymore because we have more than enough for when we retire. We continue to because we don't need the extra now, and we will find fun things to do with even more money later on.
How did we do this? First of all, I was making decent money for Ohio even back in the late 90s. Second of all, we owned used cars and didn't have cable television for years (we now again don't have it because...Netflix). We didn't waste money.
If you take two professional people and invest half their income for the first 7 years of their marriage, that alone brings a decent sum at retirement, but we have done a LOT more than that.
It's not about what you make. It's about what you spend and what you invest.
Bro, you've been busted by your own words. Just stop.
Busted how? Busted on what?
L L wrote:
You're letting these clowns change the subject away from Trump and his criminality and obfuscation.
I know. Kind of funny for now.
I do apologize for allowing this to go off track a bit. I will make it up to all of you who don't like that.
I will right the ship eventually.
“Spying” is defined differently among trump’s officers: FBI thinks of it as illegal; barr thinks spies are people who reveal illegal stuff that voters don’t need to know because it would threaten the forthcoming trump dictatorship. Dream on, fat boys!
Trump & barr could open a barbecue joint after they get out of prison. Isn’t that what famous fat people do after they’ve lost everything?
Dow dives 600 points after trade war threat. I wonder if the tax returns would show insane profits from shorting the market right before issuing these threats.
RIP: D3 All-American Frank Csorba - who ran 13:56 in March - dead
RENATO can you talk about the preparation of Emile Cairess 2:06
Running for Bowerman Track Club used to be cool now its embarrassing
Great interview with Steve Cram - says Jakob has no chance of WRs this year
Hats off to my dad. He just ran a 1:42 Half Marathon and turns 75 in 2 months!
2017 World 800 champ Pierre-Ambroise Bosse banned 1 year for whereabouts failures