ShcShc11

haha humorous topic. This is actually the first time I heard about kitesurfing (guess that's what I get for living in cold Montreal Canada). Looks hella fun aswell. The easy summary is: -Belly flying should be relatively easy. I've seen some people "get it" within 4 tries in the tunnels. -Every other things like backflying/freeflying will make you go "wtf" for a very long time until you "get it". Cheers!

Yes Please!! I keep looking into classifieds and the rating system would help soooo much. And if possible, a way to communicate with the ones that left the feedbacks. Thanks.

And that's where people keep getting wrong. The numbers are there yet the crazies just ignore it and say "they don't exist".

HGSI Human Genome Sciences developed Benlysta for Lupus. http://www.google.ca/finance?q=NASDAQ%3AHGSI I wonder how it is taken by the public. Cheers!

ohh facts and chicks. I read it as "Fat and Chicks" at first. Cheers!

"everything he does is for political gain" you guys are absolutely naive & delusional lol. Cheers Shc

Hey, I was just wondering what photographers thought about 3D. I always thought it would have a good potential as it enhances the depth of the background. Seeing someone fall would probably give a "holy crap, I'm falling" feeling to whuffos (I remember I did when watching Avatar in the haydays). Cheers Shc

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/dec/27/vote-obama-centrist-republican The article has a point. Cheers.

''you'll think exiting from 3.500ft is the scariest thing EVER'' LOLL guilty as charged. Scares the shit out of me.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=SWzbEn-aXMQ Cheers. Shc

LOL. Never change climate deniers.

I guess the 1st church of global warming thinks this is a small price to pay. Not me. It's a scam. Ah, old fashion deniers. They never change.

I found some CBO numbers on this. Private Vouchers aren't medicare. GRAPH / NUMBERS http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/37/2231y.jpg/

Summary: "Republicans muscled a budget through the House of Representatives in April that they said would take an important step toward reducing the federal deficit. Introduced by U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, the plan kept Medicare intact for people 55 or older, but dramatically changed the program for everyone else by privatizing it and providing government subsidies. Democrats pounced. Just four days after the party-line vote, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee released a Web ad that said seniors will have to pay $12,500 more for health care “because Republicans voted to end Medicare.” […] PolitiFact debunked the Medicare charge in nine separate fact-checks rated False or Pants on Fire, most often in attacks leveled against Republican House members. Now, PolitiFact has chosen the Democrats’ claim as the 2011 Lie of the Year. This is simply indefensible. Claims that are factually true shouldn’t be eligible for a Lie of the Year designation. It’s unnerving that we have to explain this again, but since PolitiFact appears to be struggling with the relevant details, let’s set the record straight. Medicare is a single-payer health care system offering guaranteed benefits to seniors. The House Republican budget plan intended to privatize the existing system and replace it with something very different — a voucher scheme. It would still be called “Medicare,” but it wouldn’t be Medicare. It seems foolish to have to parse the meaning of the word “end,” but if there’s a program, and it’s replaced with a different program, proponents brought an end to the original program. That’s what the verb means. I’ve been trying to think of the best analogy for this. How about this one: imagine someone owns a Ferrari. It’s expensive and drives beautifully, and the owner desperately wants to keep his car intact. Now imagine I took the car away, removed the metallic badge off the trunk that says “Ferrari,” I stuck it on a golf cart, and I handed the owner the keys. “Where’s my Ferrari?” the owner would ask. “It’s right here,” I’d respond. “This has four wheels, a steering wheel, and pedals, and it says ‘Ferrari’ right there on the back.” By PolitiFact’s reasoning, I haven’t actually replaced the car — and if you disagree, you’re a pants-on-fire liar. Indeed, reading through PolitiFact’s defense of its dubious honor, the explanation is effectively a semantics argument — its Lie of the Year, the editors argue, didn’t include the caveats and context that would make it more accurate. But let’s not forget, there were actual, demonstrable, unambiguous lies among the finalists for Lie of the Year. PolitiFact overlooked all of them. When an outlet puts “fact” in its name, the standards for accuracy are especially high. When its selecting a Lie of the Year, standards dictate that the falsehood should be overwhelmingly obvious and offensive. Today, PolitiFact, which relies exclusively on its credibility to affect the political discourse, ought to be ashamed of itself." If anybody wants the numbers, I'l try to find them. Cheers

Full story: PolitiFact.com Politifact's lie of the year is actually true LOL. If you're going to privatize medicare through vouchers, of course its going be more expensive and of course its not medicare. Cheers Shc

So this is what success looks like, heh? Comparing to the Great Depression is hyperbole; almost like playing the Hitler card in other threads. Nothing we have gone thru since then is even in the same league as far as the amount of wealth wiped out, number of unemployed, number of homeless, duration, etc. The one thing that may be worse is the length of recovery. There just aren't the easy pickins' there were following WWII. Anyone claiming with certainty to have stopped another Great Depression is full of it. No way to be certain we would have went there, no way to be certain if we were that what they did stopped it. It's like me claiming to have stopped a virus outbreak by using Zicam. Prove I didn't; and show me the facts that prove with certainty we were headed for something as bad as the Great Depression, and that with certainty prove Obama stopped it. Others (maybe you) have claimed the stimulus was way too small, far less than what was needed, not enough, etc. Now the claim is that it was enough to head off a Great Depression. Which was it? If it wasn't for TARP/Stimulus, then U.S would have went into an economic depression (Great Depression). This isin't an economic speculation, but an economic fact. Anyone in late 2008/2009 who looked and read Citi, Bank of America, AIG, JP Morgan know that it barely survived during those crucial months. This is undeniable. Now ask yourself this question: Had these corporations failed, what economic repercussions would they have on the U.S economy? Something much much severe than the "Great Recession" we actually had. This isin't contradictory. The stimulus was too small to bring the U.S to full employment and have real growth, but the TARP/stimulus was large enough to stave off the Great Depression. Thank you for asking. When I get access to the old charts and numbers, I'l post it. In the meantime, do help yourself with this topic (its more in relation to printing money, but it does help to understand eco 101 and the Euro crisis). http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=post_view_flat;post=4236166;page=1;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;mh=25; Cheers Shc More on the Euro (its a very fascinating subject to mention since its very current-event): See Italian 10 years bond: http://www.bloomberg.com/quote/GBTPGR10:IND Italy's economy is sustainable yet it is constantly attacked by the market. Same principles with the banks. If it is believed that they will fail, then they will fail. Right now, ALL european nations are under austerity (aka cut cut cut spending) and even the most optimistic economists are forecasting a European recession. The more they try to balance the budget through "budget cuts", the more they'l end up missing growth target and have the very possibility of getting into a catastrophic deflation. This will be a lesson to the U.S too who are also looking to "cut and slash" their budget in the name of expansionary austerity. I'l try to find graphs again in regards to Cameron's cut & slash methods and what that did to overall U.K business confidence (hint: It does not look good). http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-27/u-k-business-confidence-index-falls-to-lowest-in-two-years.html "U.K. business confidence declined in March to the lowest in two years, suggesting the economy may struggle to gather strength in the second quarter. A gauge of sentiment, which aims to predict economic developments four months in advance, fell to 1 from 3 in February, London-based Lloyds Banking Group Plc (LLOY) said in an e- mailed statement today. The share of companies that were less optimistic about economic prospects increased to 44 percent from 36 percent in the previous month." http://www.aei.org/404 AEI paper on austerity: "there is a great deal more controversy concerning the impact of successful consolidation on GDP growth. Although empirical studies have found many consolidations coupled with expansion, the degree to which consolidation drives rather than merely accompanies expansion is disputed. Various mechanisms have been proposed through which consolidation may spur growth, including credibility effects on interest rates and the effects outlined under the expectational view. However, the literature has identified endogeneity issues in many of these studies that may cause them to overstate expansionary effects." more on this later through edits. more on this through edits.

SOME GRAPHS/NUMBERS GRAPH 1 http://av.r.ftdata.co.uk/files/2011/12/NomuraChart1.png GRAPH 2 http://av.r.ftdata.co.uk/files/2011/12/NomuraChart2.png The basic summary: Having basic good capital wasn't the sole problem behind the 2008 crisis. Lehman and Bear Stearns fell because brokers who had the power over their short-term financing started to worry about the collateral that was promised to them. When confidence over the banks went poof, then financial institutions as old as Lehman will fall easily. If the whole financial institution is put in doubt then all the large banks will become exposed to bank runs. And we're not out of the woods yet. With the euro crisis, the concerns aren't anymore about collateral relating to sub-prime and mortgage securities, but about their exposures in the euro countries. Point is, when confidence fell out of flavour, the Obama administration took the major steps necessary to restore this confidence. The Government was the back-stop in the relation. The Government realized this situation and took the appropriate steps with TARP/Stimulus. This is what economists mean when they say the administration stopped the economy from a freefall. Its not big enough to bring unemployment to 4%, but it is big enough to have it stabilized in the 9-11%. I also want to mention about the Euro because they are so focused on the so called expansionary austerity. Remember: There is no Government back-stop. The ECB refuses to absolutely defend Italian bonds/Spanish bonds. And just like banking confidence, confidence in countries bonds are necessary ESPECIALLY when the country does not have the power to print their own money. will write/edit post more on this later..

So this is what success looks like, heh? Comparing to the Great Depression is hyperbole; almost like playing the Hitler card in other threads. Nothing we have gone thru since then is even in the same league as far as the amount of wealth wiped out, number of unemployed, number of homeless, duration, etc. The one thing that may be worse is the length of recovery. There just aren't the easy pickins' there were following WWII. Anyone claiming with certainty to have stopped another Great Depression is full of it. No way to be certain we would have went there, no way to be certain if we were that what they did stopped it. It's like me claiming to have stopped a virus outbreak by using Zicam. Prove I didn't; and show me the facts that prove with certainty we were headed for something as bad as the Great Depression, and that with certainty prove Obama stopped it. Others (maybe you) have claimed the stimulus was way too small, far less than what was needed, not enough, etc. Now the claim is that it was enough to head off a Great Depression. Which was it? If it wasn't for TARP/Stimulus, then U.S would have went into an economic depression (Great Depression). This isin't an economic speculation, but an economic fact. Anyone in late 2008/2009 who looked and read Citi, Bank of America, AIG, JP Morgan know that it barely survived during those crucial months. This is undeniable. Now ask yourself this question: Had these corporations failed, what economic repercussions would they have on the U.S economy? Something much much severe than the "Great Recession" we actually had. This isin't contradictory. The stimulus was too small to bring the U.S to full employment and have real growth, but the TARP/stimulus was large enough to stave off the Great Depression. Thank you for asking. When I get access to the old charts and numbers, I'l post it. In the meantime, do help yourself with this topic (its more in relation to printing money, but it does help to understand eco 101 and the Euro crisis). http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=post_view_flat;post=4236166;page=1;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;mh=25; Cheers Shc Consider this, from an article titled “Liquidity Crises – Understanding sources and limiting consequences: A theoretical framework,” by Robert E. Lucas, Jr. and Nancy L. Stokey: In studies conducted by Nancy Stokey and Robert Lucas, the WHOLE banking system held approximately 50 billion $ in cash by August 2008. The banking system was clearing about 2.9 to 3 trillion $ PER DAY. This wouldn’t be so bad if the contracts said “We’l pay IF we have money”. No, most of the trades involved the promise to pay somebody in hard cash based on the contracts given. Banks would therefore have to rely heavily on the repo market to pay them back in these hard cash. If a certain bank or financial institution cannot pay back and this becomes public information, then the bank will go under through a bank run. Having 50 B$ for 3 trillion $, there is no margin for error. Even the slightest doubt in the quality of the collaterals traded in the repo market could break the system. Guess what? 2008 was it. More about this later… cheers

More like you've been diagnosed with cancer and you went into chemotherapy. The cancer went away, but you still have other after-effects / adverse effects. You blame the chemotherapy for the after-effects while you completely deny you ever had cancer at all. Yes the 2008/2009 crisis was THAT serious. Cheers Shc

So this is what success looks like, heh? Comparing to the Great Depression is hyperbole; almost like playing the Hitler card in other threads. Nothing we have gone thru since then is even in the same league as far as the amount of wealth wiped out, number of unemployed, number of homeless, duration, etc. The one thing that may be worse is the length of recovery. There just aren't the easy pickins' there were following WWII. Anyone claiming with certainty to have stopped another Great Depression is full of it. No way to be certain we would have went there, no way to be certain if we were that what they did stopped it. It's like me claiming to have stopped a virus outbreak by using Zicam. Prove I didn't; and show me the facts that prove with certainty we were headed for something as bad as the Great Depression, and that with certainty prove Obama stopped it. Others (maybe you) have claimed the stimulus was way too small, far less than what was needed, not enough, etc. Now the claim is that it was enough to head off a Great Depression. Which was it? If it wasn't for TARP/Stimulus, then U.S would have went into an economic depression (Great Depression). This isin't an economic speculation, but an economic fact. Anyone in late 2008/2009 who looked and read Citi, Bank of America, AIG, JP Morgan know that it barely survived during those crucial months. This is undeniable. Now ask yourself this question: Had these corporations failed, what economic repercussions would they have on the U.S economy? Something much much severe than the "Great Recession" we actually had. This isin't contradictory. The stimulus was too small to bring the U.S to full employment and have real growth, but the TARP/stimulus was large enough to stave off the Great Depression. Thank you for asking. When I get access to the old charts and numbers, I'l post it. In the meantime, do help yourself with this topic (its more in relation to printing money, but it does help to understand eco 101 and the Euro crisis). http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=post_view_flat;post=4236166;page=1;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;mh=25; Cheers Shc

And most importantly, U.S Health care cost makes sense from a budget perspective. I remember so much non-sense about the health care bill was thrown around. "Its un-affordable. It just adds to the deficit blah blah". http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/88/healthcare.jpg/ Not only are there more people who has access to healthcare, but it is paid for. It is for year-by-year too. Sources: http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=12033 http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/120xx/doc12033/12-23-SelectedHealthcarePublications.pdf Cheers

LOL. I love how all these topics somehow turn so black & white. In regards to foreign policy, George Bush did set up the overall structure that led to the capture of Osama and Obama took a very ballsy decision to go ahead and get Bin Laden (a failure would have far more repercussions). The overall strategy of using predators is a major success. Should give credits to both... Cheers.

From an economic perspective, Mr. Obama has saved America from a 2nd Great Depression. (Bush-Paulson and Obama's TARP) along with Obama's stimulus package. Do learn the facts and understand the economic circumstances than blindly writing "the President spent so much money in such little time!!" hugs and cheers! Shc

More like a student who is $5 million in debt, is trying to borrow more and has a rich Daddy. Prove to me that the U.S debt is unsustainable. What indicators say that the U.S is in immediate trouble?

The whole Global Warming Climate Change hoopla has nothing to do with 'science' or "preventing catastrophic human-induced climate shift" It's all about grant money How on earth do people still believe that Climate Change has nothing to do with science? Saying climate change won't lead to "catastrophic changes" is one thing (the models used are somewhat debatable), but to say that the science doesn't back it up is just being in denial. Next thing you know, people will say Earth is flat again.