Random Politics & Religion #00

Uh, again, never claimed victory. Also, since when is Arkansas a blue state? When was the last time Arkansas went blue?

Constructive post. Thanks for bumping my victory tho, appreciate it.

I plan on continuing to be right. Again I ask, since when is Arkansas a blue state? When was the last time Arkansas was controlled by liberals, when was the last time Arkansas went blue in a Presidential election? You brought this up, so don't blame me for you looking like an idiot.

No thanks, I'm waiting for an answer. You have yet to back your statement up, instead resorting to your usual insults that fail everytime. I gave you plenty of broad questions, not narrow at all. Arkansas went blue for Bill Clinton, but before and after, its rarely been liberal. Present day its a conservative stronghold.

Nope, just do a little research, like, google 2016 Senate map, its not hard. As I have said, nothing is coming out of the Senate. The Dems won't be breaking off and supporting conservative stupidity.

Nope you keep moving the goal posts just like every other delusional loser on this site.


I tire of your circle talk, perhaps when you stop being a petulant child I'll take you seriously.

I accept your concession, and laugh at your failed insults and the way that you defeated yourself. Nobody cares who you take seriously, as literally no one takes you seriously, you have failed at every aspect of your life.

Clicked the wrong link... wow was that a mistake.

Can you quote where I claimed victory?

Nope, just do a little research, like, google 2016 Senate map, its not hard. As I have said, nothing is coming out of the Senate. The Dems won't be breaking off and supporting conservative stupidity.

And yet I am still correct, as usual. Yes, the democrats will continue to support Obama/Reid not having to worry about the 2016 elections. You have nothing to counter this, thats why KN stopped posting. Whats taking you so long?

KN stopped posting because you are a petulant child and think claiming victory automatically makes your right.

Assuming that the Dems will take the Senate because a lot of Republicans will be up for reelection is the same as claiming victory in 2016.

Russian rouble crashes Friday morning

Its all going according to plan! Right Putin?

While potential candidates have been dodging the 2016 question for months -- for the sake of midterm candidates, the element of suspense or honest indecision -- the race to the White House is about to see its first official announcement.

Dr. Ben Carson has long fanned speculation that he may pursue the Republican nomination for president in 2016. That speculation will turn to reality this weekend, as ABC News has confirmed the conservative plans to air a 40-minute ad announcing his bid.

The ad will be presented in the form of a documentary, giving insight into Carson's background and ambitions. It will run in 22 states and Washington, D.C. The ad was funded and filmed by a production company owned by Armstrong Williams, Carson's business manager.

Carson, a neurosurgeon, regularly appears on Fox News as a commentator. He has never held political office. Carson has presented at the Conservative Political Action Conference a couple of times, where he's openly ridiculed the president and said gay people "don't deserve extra rights," among other things.

When asked about his presidential ambitions in the past, Carson has repeatedlyresponded that he would "leave it up to God." Last month, he told Fusion that he did not want to be president.

"Why would any sane person want to do that?” he asked.

Worked out good for us, actually, we frequently are exchanging gifts with family in Russia and just did our holiday purchases at a 30% discount. I might buy myself a PS4 to celebrate!

How is that different that the political assassination attempts on Clinton for the last 2 years, all of which have missed? That said, it won't be hard for the actual GOP candidates to run this guy out of town. No political experience, he will never "become a threat."

Clicked the wrong link... wow was that a mistake.

The Supreme Court on Friday agreed to take up a new challenge to ObamaCare that Democrats fear could dismantle the healthcare law.



The case, King v. Burwell, rests on whether the federal government can legally hand out healthcare subsidies in 34 states that have opted out of creating their own exchanges. About 87 percent of people enrolled in ObamaCare receive the subsidies.



The decision comes as a surprise to many court-watchers and healthcare experts, who have warned that the case could seriously undermine the future of ObamaCare.



If the high court rules against the premium credits, it would gut a core component of the law that’s already gone into effect for more than 4 million people in the U.S.

That number is expected rise to 7.3 million people by 2016, according to a report by the nonprofit health policy organization, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.



More than $36 billion in subsidies could be lost if the court sides with the law’s opponents, the report found.

The ruling would a “domino effect” on other parts of the law, the researchers said.



Without subsidies, they cautioned that the federal government would be forced to rethink its policies on the individual mandate, regulatory reforms and state exchanges.



King v. Burwell, like the similar Halbig v. Burwell case, has a long history within the nation’s court system. On July 22, two U.S. courts delivered opposite rulings on the subsidies.

Halbig, one of several pending ObamaCare lawsuits, is slated to be reheard by a full circuit court panel on Dec. 17. The King case would likely be heard in March, according to SCOTUS Blog, which was first to report the news.

The Obama administration – as well as top Democrats who helped write the law – have attacked the GOP-driven lawsuits as what they call false characterizations of the Affordable Care Act.

Five Democrats who crafted the law penned an op-ed in The Washington Post last week accusing 
the law’s opponents of trying to “cherry-pick” language from the statute to prove that the federal government doesn’t have power to enforce subsidy rules.

Rep. Diane Black (R-Tenn.) applauded the court’s decision to take up the case, blasting the president's "recklessness" in implementing the law.

"If the President has been overstepping his authority as the text of the ACA suggests, this means that his Administration has been misrepresenting the true costs of Obamacare to millions of Americans across the country," Black wrote.

"Even more worrisome is what implications this could have for Americans who have already received subsidies and may be on the hook for back taxes," she said.

Economists have predicted that if the lawsuit is successful, it would cause a “near death spiral” for the individual market, according to an October 2014 study by the independent research group, RAND.



“Without the subsidies, prices would jump sharply and many people simply could not afford to enroll,” said Christine Eibner, an economist who led the study, which was sponsored by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Not sure how you get 30% from < 3 rubles since this time last year, but ok.

In November 2013, the Rouble was at 32:1, bud. Even a couple months ago when we did it, the rate was ~35:1. This isn't even something that's hard to research.

Uh, no... It translates to 23.1% for the tablet we bought my brother-in-law. Aren't you supposed to understand numbers? 6,800 Roubles at 34.9:1 is %194.84 6,800 Roubles at 44.8:1 is $151.79

In November 2013, the Rouble was at 32:1, bud. Even a couple months ago when we did it, the rate was ~35:1. This isn't even something that's hard to research.

So the republicans who have been hammering at Obama for not having enough experience want a guy that has even less experience to run for office?

also, I don't think anyone that can be quoted as saying gay people "don't deserve extra rights," is electable anyways...

Given that you gave these numbers:

Instead of the 44.8:1 amounts (since you never released an actual date or exchange rate at all, and you mentioned that you did this several months ago, not using today's rates at all), how in the hell was anyone supposed to know what you did or what rates you used?

Not our fault you failed to fully disclose important information and tried to portray numbers that had no basis in your "story"

In November 2013, the Rouble was at 32:1, bud. Even a couple months ago when we did it, the rate was ~35:1. This isn't even something that's hard to research.



We mostly send cash in dollars, then have them buy the gifts locally, cashing in when the rates are good. I did estimate it a bit high, though, it's really only around 25%, but the cost of shipping for the few things we buy and send and the fees for sending money are mostly to blame on that.

Exchange rates are hardly a mystery, dude, you can look at them by day for the last several years. I said we saved about 30% on our holiday shopping, you're the one who pulled a number out of your butt trying to argue with me without even knowing the exchange rates.

You stuck your wang out trying to be a big man and got showed up.

Dollars to Rubles:
Today the rate is 37.9 per $1.

2 weeks ago I got 35.6 per $1.

Last October I was getting 35.2 Rubles per $1.

Just as a side note, a friend of mine who visited Russia sometime over the summer last year, I think somewhere around May, said he got 35.5 Rubles per $1.

The only reason it has jumped so much between now and 2 weeks ago is the bank is trying not to interfere right now. Which of course was just an announcement and they had to jump in anyway after speculators panicked.

If you're talking Rubles to Dollars, then this time last year it was 32.4 rubles for each $1.

2 weeks ago it was something ridiculous like 42.4 for each $1

Now it looks to be somewhere around 46.8 for $1, but I don't know the spread their using as that changes each day.

At least I see now where you messed up. Incoming vs. outgoing. Incoming hasn't changed much, whereas outgoing has changed drastically.