The Rocket

9 minutes ago, 1trailmaker said:

When you lose a discussion don't bring your child into it and pretend you just won.

 

 

 

  ya okay RR

You are that stupid.  

42 minutes ago, 1trailmaker said:

you just said if this guy can't find a job in 24hrs its a sign of poor economy

if not what have you been babbling about?

Honest - my 9 year old has better reading comprehension than you do. 

2 minutes ago, awful knawful said:

On 2017-11-16 at 10:44 AM, xtralettucetomatoe580 said:

See, you just don’t get how to frame your response. I understand that’s past your education level, but let me help you. You keep having the guns are dangerous discussion. That isn’t relevant. To a low information voter, it may be, but I am going to challenge you to use some of you common sense here.

You have two options here. Freedom to make choices and absolute safety. Freedom to own a weapon can be upheld with proper gun control, but mostly it requires proper enforcement. Regulation that doesn’t infringe on right to freedom. Absolute safety is saying your right to freedom is less than a preconceived notion of safety. Unfortunately I am about to fuck that whole arguement with two fists... 

Our two countries percentage of the population are within 7 hundredths of a percent in terms of people who die every year as a percentage of the population. This includes all types of deaths. What does that mean? It means gun violence is so nominal that it has truly zero outcome on your life. So what does that mean about absolute safety? It means your argument is shit. It does not correlate to reducing deaths in the macro view. Freedom > Safety as safety is nominal in a gun based debate. 

There, science and math just proved you as an emotional decision maker. Really too bad that my degree in statistics from the liberal bastion of University of Wisconsin -Madison had to shit on your liberal narrative. Now run along...

16 hours ago, xtralettucetomatoe580 said:

Omg... If gun deaths were more than nominal statistics, they would show a disproportionate effect on average deaths a year. They don’t. Because they are nominal. You are too fucking stupid to understand the most basic statistical data. If they were actually effecting life, the US would have a higher number of deaths. A measurable number. The fact that all deaths are included is absolutely necessary. It is fucking critical to show relevance. Did you even graduate high school? Do I need to get out a box of crayons? You are making an emotional fear based arguement. Point and case your last little paragraph. You sound like a spoon fed fucking moron. Maybe go find someone to give you your opinion for you because you are too stupid to use data properly... 

Ok - I’ve taken my share of stats classes. Your numbers must include deaths from natural causes (getting old etc). Which is either stupid or disingenuous on your part. I’m hoping it’s a mistake. 

Im fine if you yanks are ok with your gun culture and don’t desire to try and change it. Just say that and stop the fake outrage at thoughtless gun crime. 

15 minutes ago, 1trailmaker said:

   Its the sign of greedy employers like Wal-mart that only offer part time work........  You lose  your 20 and hour job at Costco, can't find another one stocking selves for that wage, in your eyes that means poor economy   

Dude keep thinking our economy is bad    ignore the record numbers

 

Go back to TBP

Hey Einstein - point to where I said the economy was bad.  

21 minutes ago, 1trailmaker said:

wrong

If people are being laid off in masses and can't find a job then this is an indicator of the economy.

Someone (very few)  loosing their job and can't find an equal one is NOT an indicator

don't be dumb RR - comparing a full out recession period to today is fucked up

 

Never mind the reason this mystery person 02sled made up reason for losing his job

 

Sorry RR if you think the economy is bad today, you have some real bad news coming your way soon

Jesus. Focus. 

Someone that loses their full time job and can’t find full time employment and has to accept part time employment is the very definition of “under employed”. It is also a sign of a weak economy. 

I never commented on the economy. But everything you are stating about employment is wrong. 

18 minutes ago, 1trailmaker said:

We all know You and 02sled are an employers dream, I guess I was referring to the rest of us in the world and not you two

next time i will use another person as an example and not someone of your great stature

 

Either way if someone losses a job and can only find partime work isn't an indicator of a weak economy - its that simple

Of course it is numbnuts. 

24 minutes ago, 1trailmaker said:

my example is correct, you just said it......   It has nothing to do with a strong economy is what i said and you agreed

 

and lol RR you have moved your status to 02sled heights being the best person to be  hired for any job  

People being “under employed” is not a sign of a strong economy. It’s the opposite. After the 2008 financial crisis “under employment” was a big issue in the US. 

It is not my status. It is a function of my industry. Competing firms are always looking to poach guys from other firms. 

8 hours ago, 1trailmaker said:

wrong

A strong economy isn't measured by you being able to get a replacement job - sorry this is just fact

 

RR is at a certain level of employment, if he lost his job the chances of him finding another one at this level would be very small.  Not saying it wouldn't happen but it wouldn't be over the next week or even the next year.  This has nothing to do with the economy

 

 

 

 

Well - your example is wrong.

Your example would be considered “under-employment” and not an example of a strong economy. 

17 minutes ago, 02sled said:

I was traveling yesterday and as I lost my radio station I hit scan and it came to CBC radio. They had a call in show with Wynnebag. People were beating her up pretty bad and the host seemed to be trying to defend her to a degree. The two things they were calling on were the minimum wage and the college strike. The vote rejecting the offer for the strike had just happened. She kept saying over and over how she has been monitoring it closely and will be meeting with both sides later in the day. One caller told her about how his daughter is tied into a lease, worked away from home all summer to save money to help pay for school and they are just managing to pay for her education. They are coming out on the losing end and it's a significant financial impact to his family. Next tuition payments are now due. Her lame answer was that the colleges were creating a fund to help those in financial need. What college student isn't in financial need when they pay tuition, housing etc. that they don't receive.

Another caller is a small business owner. He says he has been doing the math over and over. The minimum wage may well force him to close the doors and put 20 people out of their jobs. Part of the staff are minimum wage. I think he said just over half. He can't absorb the increased labour costs and stay profitable. He points out that if the minimum wage goes up 33% the rest of the staff will want a 33% increase as well. It's not only the wage that goes up but the employer payments to WSIB, EI and CPP also go up. The 1% tax savings won't put a dent in it and he says it's a smoke screen, nothing more. Wynnebag doesn't believe that those already earning $15 / hour will want a 33% raise as well. She thinks that it's a matter of playing catch up. Those who have been earning $15 have been getting raises while those at minimum wage haven't.

She really isn't in touch with reality.

Min wage in Ontario is now a $32,000 a year job. 

12 minutes ago, 02sled said:

The MER

I suspect you moved the decimal place one to many to the left.  

Mix of funds and ETFs? 

3 hours ago, Glenn in Caledon said:

They do have a thicker centre keel then the stockers.

Polaris has the mounting holes too far back on the stock skis on the axys and they where hard on the front. I snapped the carbide off because it wore the runner out while still having carbide off. 

Those skis desperately need shims and some type of ski saver under the carbide. I just decided to replace with in the better skis.

Edit- I never had problems with the skis on my pro ride either (2 sets of carbides in 6000 miles) The axys sleds seem to wreck the skis a lot worse then the old Chassis ever did even though they are the exact same ski. 

Interesting. I’ve seen some guys shim skis on the Pro Ride sleds but I’ve not seen abnormal wear. Sadly I don’t have any experience with AXYS based sleds.  

46 minutes ago, 02sled said:

Then lets go totally socialist... everyone supplied a government paid for home, a government paid for car, why should anyone have something not everyone else can have.

The Liberals have started a program of guaranteed income so we are getting closer. 

16 minutes ago, 02sled said:

The agreement we just signed is at .079%

Agreement for what?  

On 2017-11-15 at 12:04 PM, 02sled said:

Perhaps having minimum account requirements could be short sighted. I know a few people who have gone to an advisor and given them a small amount that they figure they can afford to risk saying, "Let's see what you can do with this." If the person does a good job then they transfer a much larger sum over. One example was someone who transferred $10K to see how that would do for 9 months. The subsequent transfer was in excess of $1M.

Certainly there is that risk. A rookie is more likely to take an account that has the hope to turn into something. 

On 2017-11-15 at 7:57 AM, ArcticCrusher said:

The markets are never wrong, you were big time.  Not that I am surprised.  The best advise I could give anyone is to do a complete 180 from you.

More gold from you. “The markets are never wrong”.  

The markets are by their nature inefficient and often wrong. If it wasn’t bubbles and busts wouldn’t happen. Inefficient markets create opportunities  

Anyway you look at the Bomber it’s a company with negative cash flow. Without a $1 billion government bailout and then giving away 50% of its most value asset for FREE it couldn’t afford to produce it’s new plane. If that fits the criteria of your investing philosophy then fill your boots. But thinking it’s a buy because it went up isn’t Warren Buffetesque. 

On 2017-11-14 at 11:29 PM, StevieWonder said:

He's the only non douche , 

i better call him   Tell him his good bud Red is here . 

Hi Chris , how's the Burlington nightclub district doing ? 

I’m good Stevie. But more time spent in arenas then the entertainment district. Sitting in one as I type.  

I saw the Puzzler calling out to me numerous times before I rejoined here. I kinda felt sad for him. 

On 2017-11-14 at 11:41 PM, ArcticCrusher said:

Well he might want to bring up the bomber, you know the dead cat bounce from our resident junior financial acheliever when it was like 80 cents.  Talk about missing the mark.lol.

Awe yes - the Bomber. The company that was so strong that it needed a bailout from the government of a billion $ because it couldn’t afford to actually produce the C series. Then has to GIVE AWAY 50% of the C series to Airbus to make the project viable.   

On 2017-11-14 at 10:37 PM, ArcticCrusher said:

Good for you Red let me know when you can beat inflation as that is my minimum measurement.

Remember - you don’t pass the test. 

13 minutes ago, ArcticCrusher said:

I would consider a loser someone who thinks they know shit about the markets but can't hit inflation, but fill your boots.  Junior Achiever.

Oh Dom you’re killing me.  

Now - I’d love to stick around and jerk your chain all night but I’ve got an early morning wake up call. So, enjoy stewing in your own juices. 

10 minutes ago, ArcticCrusher said:

Do you have an issue Pete?

I think Pete’s got a long list of issues - but is still a good guy.  

1 minute ago, Stoney said:

C&A are good skis, but for some reason when I was following you, man did my skis ever track bad. 

Some C&As have crazy aggressive keels. 

Just now, Stoney said:

Polaris 

Of course. 

Just now, ArcticCrusher said:

Get over yourself loser.

Well, I’d consider a loser someone who goes out of their way to talk about other members. But fill your boots. 

2 minutes ago, Stoney said:

But Glenn is in the super aggressive pack, way out front with Rev 

All shit breaks if rdden hard enough. But 3 sets of carbides and a set of skis in 2000 miles?

Just now, ArcticCrusher said:

Well you did and there are two type of people that I can't forget.  Those who obviously impress the fuck out of me and I can't forget and those who do the opposite and I can't forget cause they are a useless twit.

 Sure. But what’s funny is you’d apparently be so forgettable. I guess I shouldnt be surprised though. 

I was told an interesting story where you reached out to a fellow FSer to talk about me.  

1 minute ago, Glenn in Caledon said:

Stock skis in 2000 miles destroyed 3 sets of carbides and wrecked the keels. C and a skis and carbide look brand new with more miles and more road running on them

What?  You running on the ground?

stock skis have over 4000 miles on them and look like new. 3500 miles on a set of Shaper carbides.