GustavBahler wrote:http://www.msnewsnow.com/story/33592564/...GREENVILLE, MS (Mississippi News Now) -
Tuesday night after 11 p.m. authorities responded to a call about a church burning in Greenville.
A local black church, Hopewell M.B. Church, was not only burned but also vandalized with the words "Vote Trump" spray painted on the side of the building. Mayor Errick D. Simmons, Greenville Fire Chief, Washington County Sheriff and other local state and federal law enforcement agencies are holding a press conference Wednesday at 10:30 a.m.
Smells like a set-up... Let's burn a church and sign our name to it.
Probably paid for by the Clinton campaign.
Vmart wrote:martin wrote:DrAlphaeus wrote:It even duped Nalod, because the press on the web is not like the dead tree press. Not as easy as putting the morning edition next to the evening edition and seeing the changes right before your eyes. This ForexLive asshole just hit the "edit" button on his post to not look like a total dirtbag. I don't even think its a totally cynical "let me make money off these Trump rubes" because it looks like he gets high on his own supply. The real rubes are NASDAQ for associating with this clown.
The content of the article didn't dupe Nalod, just the updates created a new slant on the post.
The content of the article duped BRIGGS. 6th graders with a Twitter account can dupe BRIGGS and half the people voting for Trump.
This look isn't good for you Martin.
Vmart, I take this stuff very seriously and don't take very well to those who come here and post utter crap. I'm game for an adult conversation and exchange of ideas. There are some very uninformed posters and I don't mind having them aboard, if fact I love it. But if you come here and don't want to have a back and forth, if you come and post some nonsense and giggle and glee when it's very easy to see that it's the very thing that is hurting this nation and the process around it during this election cycle, then I will take that same forceful way and make sure those that post filth understand not only how wrong they are but how utterly gullible they have become to what is wrong with this country.
This is not fool around time.
I responded 3 and 4 times directly to BRIGGS to post his sources and asked him about the nature of what he was trying to post. Nothing but more glee that Clinton was going to go down very hard. It all turned out as egg on his face.
Bonn1997 wrote:Vmart wrote:martin wrote:DrAlphaeus wrote:It even duped Nalod, because the press on the web is not like the dead tree press. Not as easy as putting the morning edition next to the evening edition and seeing the changes right before your eyes. This ForexLive asshole just hit the "edit" button on his post to not look like a total dirtbag. I don't even think its a totally cynical "let me make money off these Trump rubes" because it looks like he gets high on his own supply. The real rubes are NASDAQ for associating with this clown.
The content of the article didn't dupe Nalod, just the updates created a new slant on the post.
The content of the article duped BRIGGS. 6th graders with a Twitter account can dupe BRIGGS and half the people voting for Trump.
This look isn't good for you Martin.
Briggs is posting absurd statements that he's not fact checking and that shouldn't sound plausible to someone with basic critical thinking skills. I'm glad Martin is calling him out.
BRIGGS has a bunch of issues, but that article wasn't from "MiltiaPrepperNewsDaily.net" or anything. It was friggin' NASDAQ.com. Sure he didn't read it clearly because he was drunk on Trump kook-aid or Allanfan'd... so my issue is more with the fact this clickbait has the implicit backing of the second largest stock market. What the hell does Michelle Obama's Twitter have to do with the foreign currency market? Sure BRIGGS should have seen that, but I'm pointing the finger at the hosers who put this clickbait up.
DrAlphaeus wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:Vmart wrote:martin wrote:DrAlphaeus wrote:It even duped Nalod, because the press on the web is not like the dead tree press. Not as easy as putting the morning edition next to the evening edition and seeing the changes right before your eyes. This ForexLive asshole just hit the "edit" button on his post to not look like a total dirtbag. I don't even think its a totally cynical "let me make money off these Trump rubes" because it looks like he gets high on his own supply. The real rubes are NASDAQ for associating with this clown.
The content of the article didn't dupe Nalod, just the updates created a new slant on the post.
The content of the article duped BRIGGS. 6th graders with a Twitter account can dupe BRIGGS and half the people voting for Trump.
This look isn't good for you Martin.
Briggs is posting absurd statements that he's not fact checking and that shouldn't sound plausible to someone with basic critical thinking skills. I'm glad Martin is calling him out.
BRIGGS has a bunch of issues, but that article wasn't from "MiltiaPrepperNewsDaily.net" or anything. It was friggin' NASDAQ.com. Sure he didn't read it clearly because he was drunk on Trump kook-aid or Allanfan'd... so my issue is more with the fact this clickbait has the implicit backing of the second largest stock market. What the hell does Michelle Obama's Twitter have to do with the foreign currency market? Sure BRIGGS should have seen that, but I'm pointing the finger at the hosers who put this clickbait up.
Oh I agree with that.
But Briggs also 90% of the time doesn't even post a link to his information.
DrAlphaeus wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:Vmart wrote:martin wrote:DrAlphaeus wrote:It even duped Nalod, because the press on the web is not like the dead tree press. Not as easy as putting the morning edition next to the evening edition and seeing the changes right before your eyes. This ForexLive asshole just hit the "edit" button on his post to not look like a total dirtbag. I don't even think its a totally cynical "let me make money off these Trump rubes" because it looks like he gets high on his own supply. The real rubes are NASDAQ for associating with this clown.
The content of the article didn't dupe Nalod, just the updates created a new slant on the post.
The content of the article duped BRIGGS. 6th graders with a Twitter account can dupe BRIGGS and half the people voting for Trump.
This look isn't good for you Martin.
Briggs is posting absurd statements that he's not fact checking and that shouldn't sound plausible to someone with basic critical thinking skills. I'm glad Martin is calling him out.
BRIGGS has a bunch of issues, but that article wasn't from "MiltiaPrepperNewsDaily.net" or anything. It was friggin' NASDAQ.com. Sure he didn't read it clearly because he was drunk on Trump kook-aid or Allanfan'd... so my issue is more with the fact this clickbait has the implicit backing of the second largest stock market. What the hell does Michelle Obama's Twitter have to do with the foreign currency market? Sure BRIGGS should have seen that, but I'm pointing the finger at the hosers who put this clickbait up.
Generally, the source for all of that was Hannity and some fringe websites. BRIGGS surely saw more than just the NASDAQ article but that was what he posted cause it would have seemed the most legitimate. Not so.
We all have Google and some other very easy tools at our own hands. Many were already telling BRIGGS that this particular story was debunked. A middle schooler could have told you that something was smelly.
It's starts at the source.
martin wrote:DrAlphaeus wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:Vmart wrote:martin wrote:DrAlphaeus wrote:It even duped Nalod, because the press on the web is not like the dead tree press. Not as easy as putting the morning edition next to the evening edition and seeing the changes right before your eyes. This ForexLive asshole just hit the "edit" button on his post to not look like a total dirtbag. I don't even think its a totally cynical "let me make money off these Trump rubes" because it looks like he gets high on his own supply. The real rubes are NASDAQ for associating with this clown.
The content of the article didn't dupe Nalod, just the updates created a new slant on the post.
The content of the article duped BRIGGS. 6th graders with a Twitter account can dupe BRIGGS and half the people voting for Trump.
This look isn't good for you Martin.
Briggs is posting absurd statements that he's not fact checking and that shouldn't sound plausible to someone with basic critical thinking skills. I'm glad Martin is calling him out.
BRIGGS has a bunch of issues, but that article wasn't from "MiltiaPrepperNewsDaily.net" or anything. It was friggin' NASDAQ.com. Sure he didn't read it clearly because he was drunk on Trump kook-aid or Allanfan'd... so my issue is more with the fact this clickbait has the implicit backing of the second largest stock market. What the hell does Michelle Obama's Twitter have to do with the foreign currency market? Sure BRIGGS should have seen that, but I'm pointing the finger at the hosers who put this clickbait up.
Generally, the source for all of that was Hannity and some fringe websites. BRIGGS surely saw more than just the NASDAQ article but that was what he posted cause it would have seemed the most legitimate. Not so.
We all have Google and some other very easy tools at our own hands. Many were already telling BRIGGS that this particular story was debunked. A middle schooler could have told you that something was smelly.
It's starts at the source.
That's fair.
Critical thinking classes in middle school sounds like a good policy idea BTW. American anti-intellectualism is going be our downfall.
Bonn1997 wrote:DrAlphaeus wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:Vmart wrote:martin wrote:DrAlphaeus wrote:It even duped Nalod, because the press on the web is not like the dead tree press. Not as easy as putting the morning edition next to the evening edition and seeing the changes right before your eyes. This ForexLive asshole just hit the "edit" button on his post to not look like a total dirtbag. I don't even think its a totally cynical "let me make money off these Trump rubes" because it looks like he gets high on his own supply. The real rubes are NASDAQ for associating with this clown.
The content of the article didn't dupe Nalod, just the updates created a new slant on the post.
The content of the article duped BRIGGS. 6th graders with a Twitter account can dupe BRIGGS and half the people voting for Trump.
This look isn't good for you Martin.
Briggs is posting absurd statements that he's not fact checking and that shouldn't sound plausible to someone with basic critical thinking skills. I'm glad Martin is calling him out.
BRIGGS has a bunch of issues, but that article wasn't from "MiltiaPrepperNewsDaily.net" or anything. It was friggin' NASDAQ.com. Sure he didn't read it clearly because he was drunk on Trump kook-aid or Allanfan'd... so my issue is more with the fact this clickbait has the implicit backing of the second largest stock market. What the hell does Michelle Obama's Twitter have to do with the foreign currency market? Sure BRIGGS should have seen that, but I'm pointing the finger at the hosers who put this clickbait up.
Oh I agree with that.
But Briggs also 90% of the time doesn't even post a link to his information.
No doubt. And what galls me the most is much like that article, when caught looking stupid, folks like BRIGGS don't have the humility or honesty to acknowledge the mistake and retract. It's just on to the next debunkable meme du jour.
gr33d wrote:GustavBahler wrote:http://www.msnewsnow.com/story/33592564/...GREENVILLE, MS (Mississippi News Now) -
Tuesday night after 11 p.m. authorities responded to a call about a church burning in Greenville.
A local black church, Hopewell M.B. Church, was not only burned but also vandalized with the words "Vote Trump" spray painted on the side of the building. Mayor Errick D. Simmons, Greenville Fire Chief, Washington County Sheriff and other local state and federal law enforcement agencies are holding a press conference Wednesday at 10:30 a.m.
Smells like a set-up... Let's burn a church and sign our name to it.
Probably paid for by the Clinton campaign.
Maybe you havent been paying attention, but Trump has white nationalists making robocalls for him, campaigning for him. Some of his closest advisors have ties to the white power movement. Burning black churches is what they do. I dont make excuses for Trump or Clinton. They both suck.
GustavBahler wrote:gr33d wrote:GustavBahler wrote:http://www.msnewsnow.com/story/33592564/...GREENVILLE, MS (Mississippi News Now) -
Tuesday night after 11 p.m. authorities responded to a call about a church burning in Greenville.
A local black church, Hopewell M.B. Church, was not only burned but also vandalized with the words "Vote Trump" spray painted on the side of the building. Mayor Errick D. Simmons, Greenville Fire Chief, Washington County Sheriff and other local state and federal law enforcement agencies are holding a press conference Wednesday at 10:30 a.m.
Smells like a set-up... Let's burn a church and sign our name to it.
Probably paid for by the Clinton campaign.
Maybe you havent been paying attention, but Trump has white nationalists making robocalls for him, campaigning for him. Some of his closest advisors have ties to the white power movement. Burning black churches is what they do. I dont make excuses for Trump or Clinton. They both suck.
Wasn't saying it didn't happen... But who leaves their wallet at a crime scene?
Vote Trump, does nothing but give ammunition to the other campaign.
martin wrote:Meanwhile, no taxes from Trump, rape trial coming up, 6 bankruptcies filed, no taxes payed in a scheme that may be worthy of investigations, probable ties to Russia, sexual assault victims coming forward, on tape showing us his sexual predator ways.What am I missing?
What's missing would be a side-by-side comparison of shenanigans by both parties. 
gr33d wrote:GustavBahler wrote:gr33d wrote:GustavBahler wrote:http://www.msnewsnow.com/story/33592564/...GREENVILLE, MS (Mississippi News Now) -
Tuesday night after 11 p.m. authorities responded to a call about a church burning in Greenville.
A local black church, Hopewell M.B. Church, was not only burned but also vandalized with the words "Vote Trump" spray painted on the side of the building. Mayor Errick D. Simmons, Greenville Fire Chief, Washington County Sheriff and other local state and federal law enforcement agencies are holding a press conference Wednesday at 10:30 a.m.
Smells like a set-up... Let's burn a church and sign our name to it.
Probably paid for by the Clinton campaign.
Maybe you havent been paying attention, but Trump has white nationalists making robocalls for him, campaigning for him. Some of his closest advisors have ties to the white power movement. Burning black churches is what they do. I dont make excuses for Trump or Clinton. They both suck.
Wasn't saying it didn't happen... But who leaves their wallet at a crime scene?
Vote Trump, does nothing but give ammunition to the other campaign.
Its rural Mississippi, I doubt they consulted with a political strategist first. As for who leaves a wallet a crime scene, sounds like something someone who would paint a "Vote Trump" sign after burning a black church would do. Someone who doesn't think ahead. Lots of stories online about criminals doing that during burglaries, hold ups, etc.. If that did happen.
Clinton has close to 100 percent of the black vote. I dont put it past the Clinton campaign to use dirty tricks, like with those debate questions. But this one would give them little political advantage vs a hell of a lot of risk if it were discovered. Probably dont want any more visits from the FBI. It just wouldnt be worth it to them IMO. They would rather release dirt on Trump himself.
holfresh wrote:meloshouldgo wrote:holfresh wrote:meloshouldgo wrote:Here you go Bonnie, Clinton'S much vaunted improved economy in terms of median weekly wage data. From start to end it went up by about $22, for a whopping increase of a $1100 a year.
The median wage at the end of Clinton's 8 years was $17,784
That means half the working population made less than that a year. Some middle class, huh?
The average median household income increased 14.2% between 1992 and 2000...From 2000 to 2015 it decreased -2.4%
Link?
https://www.statista.com/statistics/2008...
This data isn't inflation adusted as far as I can tell. Can't spend too much time on it at work. My data was in 1982 dollars yours is much later. I will try to find inflation adjusted data using later dollars but I have much more faith in federal reserve data that I used on that graph of median wages.
meloshouldgo wrote:holfresh wrote:meloshouldgo wrote:holfresh wrote:meloshouldgo wrote:Here you go Bonnie, Clinton'S much vaunted improved economy in terms of median weekly wage data. From start to end it went up by about $22, for a whopping increase of a $1100 a year.
The median wage at the end of Clinton's 8 years was $17,784
That means half the working population made less than that a year. Some middle class, huh?
The average median household income increased 14.2% between 1992 and 2000...From 2000 to 2015 it decreased -2.4%
Link?
https://www.statista.com/statistics/2008...
This data isn't inflation adusted as far as I can tell. Can't spend too much time on it at work. My data was in 1982 dollars yours is much later. I will try to find inflation adjusted data using later dollars but I have much more faith in federal reserve data that I used on that graph of median wages.
Doesn't make a difference if it's inflation adjusted because the change is expressed in percentages...CPI adjusted would yield the same data...
meloshouldgo wrote:holfresh wrote:meloshouldgo wrote:holfresh wrote:meloshouldgo wrote:Here you go Bonnie, Clinton'S much vaunted improved economy in terms of median weekly wage data. From start to end it went up by about $22, for a whopping increase of a $1100 a year.
The median wage at the end of Clinton's 8 years was $17,784
That means half the working population made less than that a year. Some middle class, huh?
The average median household income increased 14.2% between 1992 and 2000...From 2000 to 2015 it decreased -2.4%
Link?
https://www.statista.com/statistics/2008...
This data isn't inflation adusted as far as I can tell. Can't spend too much time on it at work. My data was in 1982 dollars yours is much later. I will try to find inflation adjusted data using later dollars but I have much more faith in federal reserve data that I used on that graph of median wages.
It never changed in 50 years so this is pointless argument.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/201...
gr33d wrote:martin wrote:Meanwhile, no taxes from Trump, rape trial coming up, 6 bankruptcies filed, no taxes payed in a scheme that may be worthy of investigations, probable ties to Russia, sexual assault victims coming forward, on tape showing us his sexual predator ways.What am I missing?
What's missing would be a side-by-side comparison of shenanigans by both parties.
it would be very lopsided. And indeed even a side-by-side is really unnecessary, the above stands alone is very fucking scary.
holfresh wrote:meloshouldgo wrote:holfresh wrote:meloshouldgo wrote:holfresh wrote:meloshouldgo wrote:Here you go Bonnie, Clinton'S much vaunted improved economy in terms of median weekly wage data. From start to end it went up by about $22, for a whopping increase of a $1100 a year.
The median wage at the end of Clinton's 8 years was $17,784
That means half the working population made less than that a year. Some middle class, huh?
The average median household income increased 14.2% between 1992 and 2000...From 2000 to 2015 it decreased -2.4%
Link?
https://www.statista.com/statistics/2008...
This data isn't inflation adusted as far as I can tell. Can't spend too much time on it at work. My data was in 1982 dollars yours is much later. I will try to find inflation adjusted data using later dollars but I have much more faith in federal reserve data that I used on that graph of median wages.
Doesn't make a difference if it's inflation adjusted because the change is expressed in percentages...CPI adjusted would yield the same data...
Actually I might be wrong as the CPI between 1992 and 2000 was changing at an average annual rate close to 3%..Didn't think it was that high due mostly current monthly readings are close to 0.1% today...But even still the rate change at 3% or a touch lower between 2000 and 2015 is still higher than periods of 1992-2000 and more years to boot...So real wages could be down during that period but its far worse at other times...
By the way, if you are on Knick message board..CPI data inclusion is out of bounds..Come on, we aren't making public policy here...
Bonn1997 wrote:meloshouldgo wrote:Here you go Bonnie, Clinton'S much vaunted improved economy in terms of median weekly wage data. From start to end it went up by about $22, for a whopping increase of a $1100 a year.
The median wage at the end of Clinton's 8 years was $17,784
That means half the working population made less than that a year. Some middle class, huh?
That's CPI adjusted #s. So, if I understand that right, middle class income went up at about an 8% faster rate than the cost of goods.
It means Nominal Median wage increase - COGS inflation for the same period was about 6.8% for the full 8 years, not 6.8% annualy. So if COGS inflation had been 2% then the nominal wage would have shown a 8.8% increase.
meloshouldgo wrote:Here you go Bonnie, Clinton'S much vaunted improved economy in terms of median weekly wage data. From start to end it went up by about $22, for a whopping increase of a $1100 a year.
The median wage at the end of Clinton's 8 years was $17,784
That means half the working population made less than that a year. Some middle class, huh?
That's $17,784 in 1982 dollars, right? That's equal to 44K now.
I think the comment you made a few min ago about the cost adjustment is right, but it's hard to tell from the info. in the graph.
Bonn1997 wrote:meloshouldgo wrote:Here you go Bonnie, Clinton'S much vaunted improved economy in terms of median weekly wage data. From start to end it went up by about $22, for a whopping increase of a $1100 a year.
The median wage at the end of Clinton's 8 years was $17,784
That means half the working population made less than that a year. Some middle class, huh?
That's $17,784 in 1982 dollars, right? That's equal to 44K now.
I think the comment you made a few min ago about the cost adjustment is right, but it's hard to tell from the info. in the graph.
That's exactly right. It went from 41,174 in today's dollars to about 44,004 in today's dollars. Which is the same percentage increase as shown in the graph.
Edit. On my last post I indicated the inflation was added or subtracted linearly but it's not, it's geometric because of compounding.
Holfresh' data is not inflation adjusted. So if you only compare the nominal change and don't adjust for inflation your percentage increase will be overstated by something greater than the rate of inflation (because of compounding).
