Wayne, as per usual the Biden adm is too late with not near enough ammo to the party. The horse is long out of the barn for higher rates to curb. The "higher" rates to curb now would be astronomical and lead right to recession/depression and thankyou Joe Biden and company, this is all 100% on you

Thanks Wayne!

As I've been saying, rate hikes affect demand.  Our inflation is currently based on supply issues. Rate hikes do not affect supply.   They can hasten a recession, and that will certainly affect demand, but I'd hope for a less dramatic approach.

How about we quit looking for ways to inject more money into the economy and we reverse course on energy?

Let's see if that will change things without creatng a recession.

HI TIM

You have some good ideas that would really help everybody

But you know your ideas will never go any where

Brandon has too much invested in his green/zero emissions

Every body except AOC knows his energy policy hasn't got a chance in he-- to be feasible

But Brandon will continue to beat a dead horse

I guess we stuck with things as they are and worse

Maybe in 2024 things will change

Some body will have to scoop up a lot of blank voting forms and dump then in a drop box

Even with that Brandon hasn't got a chance to win, so some body else

But it will take some time to come out of recession

Ya know Wayne,  and I really hate to say this..  But sometimes,  I almost get the feeling this current admin and the democrat party  does not have the best interests of the US in their hearts.....

Obviously, I am wrong. I mean, they're always saying how patriotic they are and how much they love this country. Well , other than it's history, and the majority of citizens, and capitalism, and the constitution when it gets in thier way, which is most of the time.

But other than that, how could anyone think such a thing?

LOL Tim!

Remind me again of the political affiliation of those who committed treason, or at least attempted to violate the constitution, from Election Day to Jan 6th by concocting a plan to certify bogus electors?

Vote Republican and say goodbye to our Republic.

LOL Tim!

Remind me again of the political affiliation of those who committed treason, or at least attempted to violate the constitution, from Election Day to Jan 6th by concocting a plan to certify bogus electors?

Vote Republican and say goodbye to our Republic.

Funny stuff JOJ.  Thanks for the laugh.   Treason?   That word is used often by Dems,   but they never bring it up in court.   There's a reason for that. So they rely on "Show Trials". And the eagerly naive eat it up.  

Libs hate whataboutisms.   I hear that all the time.   But I've never seen a group use them more.    Understandable. What else have they?

Threats to our constitutional republic?  I'd say Hillary's Steele dossier and the ensuing actions of assorted federal agencies are the clostest thing we've seen to that when coupled with at least one totally fabricated impeachment effort. Talk about disinformation.   From Schiff's reading of the aleged transcript going forward,  just about nothing but.

Add in the riots of 2020 where federal officers were regularly assaulted and even entrapped in a federal building that was then ignited.  The riots in DC when Trump was inagurated.  That's the short list.  It's very extensive including many deaths/murders, thousands of injuies, billions in damage. And then our current VP as well as many other "Lovers of our country" not only encouraged them, but bailed them out as assorted liberal DA's refused to even prosecute.   They were doing the lords work, after all.  Right? Oddest thing about all this..   The only attention paid was to a teen who defended himself against some of the rioters who assaulted him.  Wierd, huh?

The very likely riots we'll see over the impending SCOTUS Roe ruling are being, and likely will be ignored as well. Possibly encouraged.  After all,  democracy is great until it doesn't go your way,  right?  We've actually had dems say that some decisions are just too important to be left up to voters, most prominent, your own Persidential Candidate, Hillary.

So, in the riots and threats to our nation,  I'd say the score is Pubs-1, Dems 6,438.  (Yes, a made up number,  but close enough for government work :-)

"Funny stuff JOJ.  Thanks for the laugh.   Treason?   That word is used often by Dems,   but they never bring it up in court.   There's a reason for that. So they rely on "Show Trials". And the eagerly naive eat it up."

Those "show" trials are "showing" massive amounts of information to my eyes and ears, Tim.

The most amazing thing is that over the past year, seems like every month,  you've consistently repeated the same false narrative that there's no new evidence.........even as gobs of new evidence has gushed in.

https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/86075/#86155

So far, all the "New Stuff" has been repackaged "Old Stuff" that's been well known since shortly after 1/06/2021

+++++++++++++++++++++++++

One has to assume that you watch Fox in the evening, that completely censors all of that new evidence and tells their viewers "there is no new evidence, this is just a kangaroo court!' the entire time.

Rs here have just parroted that false narrative for months. A new reader here, would immediately  be able to tell who watches Fox just by reading posts about the insurrection and knowing nothing about them.

I've been following the hearings. There has been a Mt. Everest amount of evidence presented by them. As an objective patriotic American THAT WANTS/DESERVES THE TRUTH, I very much appreciate what they're doing.

Repeat your false narratives as often as you want but they are NOT matching up with the reality of the hearings. You want to deny the truth or parrot Fox because it lines up with your political ideology.  We accept that. Nobody is going to change you and we still welcome all your great posts here.

Treason is absolutely an appropriate word here based on the compelling evidence at the hearings.

One has to assume that you watch Fox in the evening,

As I've said several times, and once this week, I do not watch Fox.

I have watched for "revalations" from the "Hearings".  I use quotes because these are not hearings by any stretch of the definition. They are carefuly coreographed presentations. They even hired a "sympathectic" network producer to help craft the message. 

A hearing has things like cross examination by adversarial parties.  Such is not allowed within miles of these proeedings.  They simply present their opinions and the willing accept them as fact.   In other words, a sham, by any definition.

But I tell you what.   You post what you think is the most recent and earth shattering "revelation.  I suggest you google it first because I will, and I am fairly certain it will be old news, likely appearing in a search several times from sources at least a year old.

Tim,

i believe you that you don’t watch Fox.

Ill be glad to continue to post  new information here, Tim.

you just need to stop ignoring it And calling it old information because it  happened before Jan 6.

of course it did. Thats the period being investigated.Of course we knew what happened, Tim but the many hundreds of unique relationships and actions have details that REALLY matter.

this isn’t a baseball or football game where the score at the end of the game will never change.

how we got there, in this case is absolutely the most important factor by a massive margin.

we are finding  out how we got there. What led up to the Insurredtion with theses hearings.

im learning a great deal. I can’t recall any situation in my life, when  I learned a great deal of new things from repeating the same old things Over and over.

must be something you’re doing different because I’m not imaging all these new things. I believe that you are just ignoring them because they contradict your false narrative on the hearings showing nothing new.

when back in the office, I’ll send you a few links to threads here With new information That you will surely call old information.

I don't want to parse through a bunch of links that you claim contain new information.  Everytime I have,  I don't see it.

I want you to list one specific New Revalation.  Just one concise FACT.  Should be pretty easy.

Something like "Here is corespondence between Trump and a rioter coordinating the riot". It doesn't have to be that specific example.  But that would certainly be new information.

Yes,  everything happened before or on Jan 6th.    I am not disputing that.  What I am disputing is whether we knew about it before this "Hearing".

My position is that we did.   I have yet to see one thing that was not common knowledge long ago from one of the many other investigations.  

Tim said:

"A hearing has things like cross examination by adversarial parties.  Such is not allowed within miles of these proeedings.  They simply present their opinions and the willing accept them as fact.   In other words, a sham, by any definition."

---------------------------------------------

Tim,

A lot of this is Kevin McCarthy's fault.

 "Seven Democrats and two Republicans sit on the select committee, contrary to Mr. McCarthy’s claim that it is entirely partisan. Moreover, Mr. McCarthy is omitting the fact that he is partly responsible for the small number of Republicans participating. His evocation of a two-century tradition of minority input is also wrong.

The House passed a resolution creating the select committee in June 2021, giving Ms. Pelosi the power to appoint eight members and Mr. McCarthy five. A few weeks later, Mr. McCarthy appointed Representative Jim Banks of Indiana as the ranking member, as well as Mr. Jordan, and Representatives Rodney Davis of Illinois, Kelly Armstrong of North Dakota and Troy Nehls of Texas.

Ms. Pelosi rejected Mr. Banks and Mr. Jordan, arguing that the two vociferous supporters of Mr. Trump might affect 'the integrity of the investigation' but agreed to the other three Republicans’ participation. In response, Mr. McCarthy said Republicans would not take part at all unless Mr. Jordan and Mr. Banks were allowed to join the committee.

Ms. Pelosi later appointed two Republicans critical of Mr. Trump, Representatives Liz Cheney of Wyoming and Adam Kinzinger of Illinois."

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/09/us/politics/republicans-jan-6-committee-claims.html

Thanks Larry,

The committee is there to find out what violations were committed AND THE DETAILS OF THE DYNAMICS that allowed for them to occur.

When it comes to Trump, the bias in most of his supporters is more like a complete brainwash or faith from being in a religious cult.

If you had a Catholic priest, accused of violating his vows to the Church because of connections to the devil, you wouldn't put 2 Satan worshipers on the committee to investigate it/him (-:

"I want you to list one specific New Revelation.  Just one concise FACT.  Should be pretty easy."

OK, per your request, Tim. Please watch the entire video and let me know what you think. Barr's testimony and specific previously unknown details were unheard of by anybody's ears before the hearings. Including a DISinformation video created by Trump at the 9:25 mark to push his Big Lie in a criminal way.

I sure as heck didn't know any of that!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esS-6bHijjM

On a personal basis, I actually discovered some thing new and huge based on the hearings(Trump raising 250 million) that I didn't know that I had in my mailbox(because I ignored every single one of them when they came in). Funny, mcfarm accused me of having the problem because I didn't delete them.

Crazy rational but consistent with everybody pretending that there is no new evidence or that this is a Kangaroo Court. I'm seeing, mostly the complete opposite of that, Tim.

https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/85730/

I enjoyed his testimony on 2000 Mules too.

This was Bill Barr!  President Trump's Attorney General. Not a democrat out to get him.

If you won't believe this.................you won't believe anybody or anything on this topic.

Wx Said:

A lot of this is Kevin McCarthy's fault.

Wx,

Baloney!   This committee and procedure is the grand desdign of Nancy, et.al.  The 2 republicans met the critera as they voted to impeach Trump.  Other pubs were suggested who would have played an adversarial role,  but that was not acceptable.  Would have spoiled the whle show!!  That alone should tell you this committee'c committment to truth.

Regardless, there should be cross examination and without it,  you have a bunch of "never trumpers" presenting and accepting opinions they like.

By definition,  you have to, at the very least, take the "findings with a grain of salt.

Including a DISinformation video created by Trump at the 9:25 mark to push his Big Lie in a criminal way.

You are going to say that it's new information to you that Trump was questioning the results of the election?  That he questioned Dominion technology? That he made many speeches and videos to that effect?  

That's hard for me to believe.  Do I really need to post dated links showing how old this info is?

On a personal basis, I actually discovered some thing new and huge based on the hearings(Trump raising 250 million) that I didn't know that I had in my mailbox(because I ignored every single one of them when they came in). Funny, mcfarm accused me of having the problem because I didn't delete them.

You had emails and yet you were unaware that Trump raised money for "Election Integrity"?  Again, I can't believe you need to me to post dated links as this was very very well known in the days immediatly following the election.

If he misappropriated some of those funds, show me the audit.  Otherwise, again, nothing new.

Thanks Tim,

Any person can define any word to mean whatever they want it to.

One person can define  a flood as 1 inch of rain that falls in 2 hours, another as  40 days and 40 nights of constant rain like in the Bible story about Noah.

A 5 year old thinks being 21 is old. People our age think 21 is young(but this is more related to relative values compared to our experiences that determine perspective).

In religion, our faith is extremely powerful in determining perspective. A person that believes in God, will attribute thousands of things in their lives to God, where as an atheist will attribute them to something else. What God and faith  you believe in will determine the specifics of those beliefs.

In politics, we have something that is almost more profound/powerful in determining our perspectives than anything else.

A person's political belief system is like a religious faith for most people. Their brains just cannot accept evidence or facts that contradict their faith in those political ideologies.

Their brains cannot accept being wrong about anything because the acceptance of their belief system is universally applied to ALL facts for their brains to interpret. They are incapable of changing it and are so consumed by the faith, that they only go to places that reinforce the belief system (like a Christian going to Church every Sunday) or Jews going to the Synagogue.

Facts for people that have different belief systems are like facts between God worshippers and atheists. They go beyond a relative perspective and enter the perspective of being ABSOLUTES and EXTREMES. 

  In the case of the Insurrection hearings, reasonable, non political people would be able to discuss and agree on certain, indisputable facts but might disagree on other ones based on perspective.

A person who's mind is completely captured by a political ideology that controls and interprets ALL their thoughts with the faith of a religion sees an absolute.

There can never be new facts because the political belief system does not allow for that.

++++++++++++++++++++++++

Tim,

We've shown dozens of new facts regarding Jan 6. You just asked for 1 and I gave you extremely compelling evidence, with video evidence of Bill Barr of 1, then added another personal one that I would have never known if not for the hearings.

Your defining of  new facts is one that believes that anything that has ever happened before in history.........is no longer a new fact because it already happened. New evidence(new facts about the dynamics that provide needed  insight for understanding) that the rest of us learn for the first time............already happened, so its not new.

+++++++++++++++++++++

Your interpretation of this post will be to completely reject all the 100% valid elements that contradict the tenets of what your brain uses to define the world.

When Fox news censored the hearings, for instance your brain defined it as "good business" despite being the most anti censorship person that I know.  

You will note that this discussion his gone beyond a debate of whether there are new facts or not.........because of course, there are tons of them, to instead, an analysis to explain why you completely reject all of them as new.

Trust me on this one. Fox news is well aware of this extreme, political human cognitive bias in its viewers and they know exactly how to maintain it.

It applies to thousands of other topics and other realms which define human psychology/thinking and behavior..........so your position here is not that unusual.

Multiply the affect by tens of millions of people, for instance in the Trump cult and you have the continued belief by  60-70% of people that the most secure and indisputably proven authentic election in history(by every single measure/metric)............was stolen from Donald Trump.

MM,  The examples you gave are not new.   I explained that clearly above.   Trump has called the election stolen since before the election and Trump was raising funds for election integrity since shortly after the election. All this was well known for well over a year.

New opinions have no impact on old facts. They are not new evidence.    I don't know how else to explain this.

Maybe you can save time and instead of these silly debates,  you can just label us as "Fox Watching Riot Deniers"  and be done with it.  :-)

Maybe you can save time and instead of these silly debates

Tim,

Like I keep telling you when the debates morph into you completely ignoring the settled facts that are the metrics of determination......it's not a debate anymore.

It's an objective  analysis of your behavior/thinking to explain the irrational responses.

Nothing personal, either. I like you, Tim and appreciate your many wonderful contributions here and know that you are completely sincere and are extraordinarily intelligent. 

Perhaps you can tell me how Barr's opinion on something that happened last year, something that was well known to have happened last, in any way impacts what happened last year?

Tim: Perhaps you can tell me how Barr's opinion on something that happened last year, something that was well known to have happened last, in any way impacts what happened last year?

This is the exact perfect example of what I was stating that you're doing to confirm my analysis:

metmike": Your defining of  new facts is one that believes that anything that has ever happened before in history.........is no longer a new fact because it already happened. New evidence (new facts about the dynamics that provide needed  insight for understanding) that the rest of us learn for the first time............already happened, so its not new.

https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/86133/#86233

Again, you want to try to argue.............I've moved beyond that and am analyzing why you keep wanting to argue.........and you keep confirming the analysis.

Tim,

I'm not trying to use some sort of trick to avoid arguing with you, I am sincerely/honestly  and objectively doing exactly what I'm stating.

Again, your political religion disables you from seeing it as I explained about.

Just like 60-70% of republicans can't see who won the 2020 election....no matter how mind boggling compelling the proof is. They have already decided that Trump won. You have already decided there is no new evidence.........no matter how much new evidence is introduced (again, just more elaborating/analysis).

New evidence that the rest of us learn for the first time............already happened, so its not new.

This is exactly what I did not say, what I have not said and what I will not say.  Read it again.

"Perhaps you can tell me how Barr's opinion on something that happened last year, something that was well known to have happened last, in any way impacts what happened last year?"

We know, have known, did know that Trump questioned the results of the election.  He was extremely outspoken on that issue.  We know, have known, did know that Trump raised money for "election integrity".

If you claim you were not aware of either of these items, I can easily find dozens of, (or far more) dated references that show this was common knowledge well over a year ago.

Recently issued opinions do not change the fact that these items were well known quite some time ago. Opinions are, hopefully,  based on facts.  They do not prove facts. They do not change facts.

Let me give you another analogy.

We played out high school football games on Sundays, then watched the recorded film on Mondays. This was 50 years ago.

The score was settled on Sunday, once and for all.

When we looked at film, we were looking for specific dynamics, usually involving individual players,  during the game to analyze what happened and what it led to.

If a player made a great block or MISSED a blocking assignment, for instance.

Each play, shows 11 players on each side that can run in slow motion and even stopped to look closer to see WHY it evolved in the outcome.

The game already happened and every play happened before and everybody knew the outcomes.

But much of the detailed analysis IS IN FACT NEW because it can be seen in a way that was impossible to see before.

We are literally getting bombarded with thousands of details(some small but still new)  involving the dynamics of the Insurrection and what led up to it that we didn't know before.

Thousands.

And you can't see one.

Tim,

Continuing to confirm what I already explained with your thinking is never going to somehow, result in me going back to arguing the facts which are indisputable.

That was my latest update on the analysis...........you somehow think that I will go back to an argument about whether there have been any new facts.

I will analyze why you do this and provide analogies but thousands of new facts don't need proving anymore.

You asked for just one...........I accommodated with a wonderful example of one and added another one that was personal.

You rejected it completely.....so I'm analyzing the thinking that goes into it and you keep confirming the analysis more and more and just digging a deeper hole.

This obviously is turning into an extremely non productive conversation.........except for 1 indisputable fact.

It's contributed to my analysis, which is the only reason for continuing to engage with you. However, it's morphing into silliness at this point.

So please have a wonderful day and let's go on to other threads that have productive potential. 

And please, no smart alec remarks about how you were right and I bailed out because of that.

My point is and has been that there are no new details coming out of this obvious charade.

The facts have been known.

I have asked for new facts that have been revealed.

You use an analogy of watching an old football game in slow motion. It will not change the outcome of the game, to be certain, but it may reveal facts that were not known.  No argument.

But you have yet to show new facts revealed in this "show", slow motion or otherwise.

Barr's opinion is not a new fact.  It is an interpretation of the known facts.  

I don't know why I can't seem to communicate this to you, and I have no idea how else to phrase it, so I'll leave you with the last word.

HAHAHHHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

LITERALLY... MY FACE & GUT HURT FROM LOL AT THIS THREAD!!!!!!!!  LOLOLOLOL

THANKS FOR THE FUNNNNNNN!