Show Comments That Contain...
  • On 18 Apr 2014 in Is it time for the bears?, AverageBear said:

    Lol.... Yes I am.... However, I won't be wasting my time on the political forum. (Much)... I'd rather spend that time researching stocks to make $$, rather than argue with people that will never change their opinion anyway. .... And as an Avg Bear, you ALWAYS find an undervalued, dividend growth company to invest for the long haul, in any market. In a bear market , That's when successful investors (read, NOT traders) make the most $$....

  • On 17 Apr 2014 in Is it time for the bears?, AverageBear said:

    There is ALWAYS time for this bear.

  • On 17 Apr 2014 in need advice from you awesome PatNetters, AverageBear said:

    ACF, I'm here to tell you that you want to put your money in 5-10 blue-chip dividend paying stocks. If you want to spend a llittle time doing some research, you will find that dividend growth investing is very rewarding. A 60 month CD earning 2.25% ..... How about putting some of that $$ into Coca Cola (KO). It currently earns 3.2%, and KO increases its dividend payout every February around 10%. They have been doing this for over 30 years. Coke ain't going anywhere... It will take 7 years to double your dividend... 3.2% becomes 6.4% for Yield on Cost ... There's a reason why Warren Buffett holds tons of this stock (around 9% of KO, IIRC). Other bluechips to consider with annual dividend growth between 7-10%... PEP, JNJ, XOM, CVX, PM, MCD.

    http://dailydividendalert.com/david-fishs-dividend-champions-contenders-and-challengers/

    For more info/inspiration on Dividend Growth Investing, check out the following links... Good Luck!

    http://theconservativeincomeinvestor.com/

    http://theconservativeincomeinvestor.com/2013/07/11/colgate-palmolive-stock-an-essential-core-holding-in-your-portfolio/

    http://www.dividendgrowthinvestor.com/

  • On 23 Feb 2014 in Are there any genuine Obamacare horror stories?, AverageBear said:

    El HydroCabron says

    That video is debunked in the article I posted, complete with a still photo.

    Idiot.

    OK, wanna explain the hospitals.... idiot?

  • On 23 Feb 2014 in Are there any genuine Obamacare horror stories?, AverageBear said:

    Automan Empire says

    Maybe you missed the thread title and OP? All these high profile "Obamacare made me lose my coverage/doctor/etc" cases keep being proven untrue, even anti-true. So far this thread consists of broad vague threats of doom, and red herrings, but no genuine Obamacare horror stories that stand up to scrutiny over time, confirming the OP's premise.

    Maybe because the mainstream media is going out of it's way to protect the 'dear learder'?? You don't see or hear any Obamacare horror stories, because they are spiked. And they are spiked because those that would like to publish/air these stories are threatened by any means available: loss of job, black-balling, IRS attacks. These and other means are not beneath Obama to use, and in fact have been used...

    Meanwhile, you have stories like this....

    http://americansforprosperity.org/stop-the-left-from-silencing-obamacare-critics-2

    http://michellemalkin.com/?p=153703

    And before you start telling me that Fox only tells lies, I'll save you the effort. Obamacare was built on a foundation of lies, so when it comes to Fox, shut yer pie-hole.

    Oh, and aside from the individual horror stories, let's talk about the bigger horror stories, like hospitals being shut down because of Obamacare...

    http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/1y8q76/4th_georgia_hospital_shuts_down_as_state/

    http://www.liberalforum.org/index.php?/topic/159743-fourth-georgia-hospital-closes-due-to-obamacare-payment-cuts/

    http://dailycaller.com/2014/02/18/fourth-georgia-hospital-closes-due-to-obamacare-payment-cuts/

  • On 18 Jan 2014 in Christie,Were you thinking about running for President?, AverageBear said:

    edvard2 says

    indigenous says

    I mean he will continue the spending

    Yes.... that's what government does. The spend money for defense, roads, infrastructure, and social services.

    ....Can't forget the vote-buying of the upstanding multiple EBT-card carrying layabouts..... or the Trillion dollar war on poverty ("When you subsidize illegitimacy, guess what? You're gonna get a shit-load more of illegitimacy").... Yeah, that really went well. 50 years and a trillion dollars later, we've only removed 2 million from being 'poor'... supposedly....

    or how every senator wants to bring useless pork to their state, so we can all go to bed feeling better, in knowing how crickets fuck; because our fine gov't spent 20 million to find out.

  • On 14 Jan 2014 in You guys need to remember all the bullshit that you said..., AverageBear said:

    I'm waiting for Christie to send a Susan Ricey-Rice person to hit the Sunday talk shows, to lie to everyone that the traffic on the GW Bridge was caused by an online video about EBT card-carrying illegals shaking their 'sweet-meats' at the freshly-minted Senator Booker, that sparked a protest that blocked the bridge traffic that day. Oh wait. Two things wrong with that...

    - No Americans or diplomats died on the GWB that fateful day. Also, no self-respecting protester wouldn't protest without dozens of well-aimed RPG launchers. So the shock value is diminished. Not that it's stopping the MSM anyway.

    - Christie can't use that 'bait and switch' trick. It would be SOOOO obvious that this was taken out of Obama's playbook. "If you like your traffic lane, you can keep your traffic lane." HAHAHAHAA

  • On 13 Jan 2014 in You guys need to remember all the bullshit that you said..., AverageBear said:

    bob2356 says

    CaptainShuddup says

    bob2356 says

    Is there a point of any kind here?

    Yes Woody is going to a heckuva job, when the GOP takes over Washington and every single position in Washington will be filled by cronies and campaign contributors.

    Woody lays awake all night just dreaming of the billions he and his buddies are going to make while they investigate every Liberal douchebag they don't agree with.

    Just remember who mastered this shit. If it's no problem now, please spare us later with your fake outrage.

    Once again the captain provides irrefutable evidence of the perils of drinking, doping, and posting.

    Once again, Cap'n is providing irrefutable evidence, that what's good for the goose, is good for the gander.... But we all know this isn't true when the MSM decides to (not) do its job....

  • On 6 Jan 2014 in INSURANCE COMPANY BAILOUTS: Pelosi bites us in the ass (again)..., AverageBear said:

    edvard2 says

    The last hoorah was the "Tea Party" and it failed.

    I think the folks in Wisconsin are quite happy about last year's successful outcome in defeating the public-sector unions. That was only the beginning. Chicago (as well as the state of Illinois) will get a real taste of pension-reform in the near-term, that is long overdue. And if the courts declare open-season on unsustainable pensions that were previously though of as 'untouchable', doled out by greedy public unions in Illinois, it's gonna spread like wildfire to those liberal states that are being bankrupted (CA and MI are two states that come to mind)....Are you gonna give the Tea Party some credit for the success in Wisconsin, and potential future success?

  • On 6 Jan 2014 in INSURANCE COMPANY BAILOUTS: Pelosi bites us in the ass (again)..., AverageBear said:

    edvard2 says

    You're conveniently leaving out the millions of Americans who stand to get insurance they couldn't afford before and in the 8 months until the election, most of those who "Lost" their plans ( even though they now singing up for new ones under the ACA) will have things in order.

    Ed,

    Your conveniently omitting the fact that as of now, Obamacare has created more uninsured, than insured. Ruining the decent (although not perfect) healthcare system for 200+ million, so that 17 million can now get 'free' healthcare is not a success. It's a thinly-veiled attempt at buying votes, and transferring wealth.

  • On 3 Jan 2014 in The Biggest Redistribution Of Wealth From The Middle Class And Poor To The Rich, AverageBear said:

    sbh says

    With corporate profits at all time highs, blue chips know all they have left to increase share value is to squeeze wages further and buy back shares. Who really needs to make a good wage if his stock portfolio is so fat? Just live off of capital. A reduction in minimum wage would help this dynamic, and soon most working stiffs could retire comfortably or become job creators themselves. Truthfully, every American should ask for his wages to be slashed and for CEO compensation to increase. A tax cut for the 1% is also a patriotic duty.

    ------------------------------
    Sarcasm duly noted. However, I find it better to own corporations, and have them pay you (in dividends), then they own you. It's right in front of everyone's eyes, but nobody seems to notice. TV/media want to distract you on this....Do what the rich, trust-funders do. The easy part is realizing what to invest in. The hard part is to stop buying shit that you can't afford (and will waste your time), instead of putting that $$ to work for you.

  • On 3 Jan 2014 in The Biggest Redistribution Of Wealth From The Middle Class And Poor To The Rich, AverageBear said:

    thunderlips11 says

    Paradox of Thrift, people, Paradox of Thrift. If everybody started saving their disposable income, those blue chip companies would see revenue collapse from lack of consumer spending.

    ---------------------
    Well, most blue-chip companies make their money from consumers who buy their products that are necessities, not necessarily disposable income. Diapers, toilet paper, soap, shampoo, payroll services, gasoline/plastics, etc doesn't fall within the realm of disposable income. These are necessities.

    Proctor and Gamble, Clorox, Colgate-Polmolive, Coca-Cola, Unilever, ADP, Chevron are blue-chips that will never collapse. Philip Morris, McDonalds, Diageo though not necessities, are products that are viewed as necessities... If these companies go down, then our society has pretty much collapsed.

  • On 3 Jan 2014 in INSURANCE COMPANY BAILOUTS: Pelosi bites us in the ass (again)..., AverageBear said:

    edvard2 says

    It will be because a lot of conservative voters are going to once again be baffled as to why they are continuing to lose elections. In fact I was listening to a report yesterday about the 2014 elections and lo and behold the voting demographic has totally changed since 2010. The last election was perhaps the last hoorah for the "old GOP", where they could go wayyy out on a limb to the far right and reel in their far right base to get em' elected.

    ---------------------------------
    Well, in the last election, I wasn't eager to vote for a Republican that had as much charisma as a bucket of mud. However, for the mid-term '14 elections, I really think liberals really underestimate the frustration of millions who lost their health insurance.

    Having your president lie to you, who then proceeds to take away your insurance that you thought you could keep, isn't going to be forgotten. Aaaand, we still have 8+ months to go till the elections, where corporate insurance plans/policies are yet to be cancelled/discontinued.... The pain that Obamacare is inflicting is far from over....

  • On 3 Jan 2014 in The Biggest Redistribution Of Wealth From The Middle Class And Poor To The Rich, AverageBear said:

    I don't care if these idiots go into debt to maintain the expected/demanded 'standard of living'. What's the standard? 2, 60" TVs, $160 cable bill, 4 iPhones, 2 iPads, 2-3 cars? Boo-fuckin'-hoo.

    I make more than the 'average' American (but not 'that' much more), yet live within my means, and there's a good chance that this is below the American's expected 'standard of living'. If people realize that if they were able to reign in the retarted spending habits, and transferred their credit card payments to an investment acct (Roth, etc), and invested in a dozen blue-chip companies, they would create unexpected wealth .... I've got no time nor sympathy for dummies.

  • On 30 Dec 2013 in Pussy Riot: Vladimir Putin should be removed from power, AverageBear said:

    Best name for a girl band. Ever.

  • On 27 Dec 2013 in Their own propaganda bites them in the ass., AverageBear said:

    Obamacare: The big sham...

    ...."Look what happened just last week. Health and Human Services unilaterally and without warning changed coverage deadlines and guidelines. It asked insurers to start covering people on Jan. 1 even if they signed up as late as the day before and even if they hadn’t paid their premiums. And is “strongly encouraging” them to pay during the transition for doctor visits and medicines not covered in their current plans (if covered in the patient’s previous — canceled — plan).

    On what authority does a Cabinet secretary tell private companies to pay for services not in their plans and cover people not on their rolls? Where in Obamacare’s 2,500 pages are such high-handed dictates authorized? Does anyone even ask? The bill itself is simply taken as a kind of blanket warrant for HHS to run, regulate and control the whole insurance system......"

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-krauthammer-story-of-the-year/2013/12/19/1d862c98-68f9-11e3-ae56-22de072140a2_story.html

  • On 26 Dec 2013 in Why you should never, EVER believe what a cop says in court, AverageBear said:

    Sooo, we can't fingerprint those EBT fraudsters to confirm identity when we give them free money (ie tax payer's $$) , but we (Mass liberals), MUST fingerprint those law-abiding, taxpaying, legal residents when they request to purchase a gun. Un-fuckin'-believable. I have no problem being fingerprinted if I want a gun. However, if you are receiving free shit from taxpayers, then you should get fingerprinted too. Then again, this is Massachusetts, one of those idiotic states that harbors illegals.... Obama's Antie Zeituni and drunken Uncle Omar come to mind.

    I'm not a big fan of wikipedia to back an argument, but I'm lazy today, and I think this is pretty much what I'll find wherever I look...

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Massachusetts

    Oh, and some people DO think that the current Mass law is unconstitutional...

    http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/2013/02/12/mass-police-chiefs-sued-over-gun-license-limits/9z2fi5udoCmnYMv8sQrDnN/story.html

    http://www.tauntongazette.com/news/x1843598971/Dighton-man-sues-town-police-chief-after-cops-revoke-his-firearms-license-seize-his-guns

  • On 26 Dec 2013 in Why you should never, EVER believe what a cop says in court, AverageBear said:

    Dan8267 says

    Again, if you want a gun in the house despite this fact, I'm not arguing that you shouldn't be allowed to have one or more. But don't spout the bullshit that those guns make your family safer. That's simply a lie. In fact, it's a dangerous lie. Anyone who believes that lie is more likely to lose a family member. At least acknowledging the problem allows you to deal with it.

    Dan, please stop projecting. I never made the claim that guns make you or your household safer.

    However, guns are safer than pools. Statistics prove this. Plus, you get the added benefit of defending your house and family, which you hope never happens. You started the argument that houses w/ guns are more dangerous. Does this take into account those that DON'T properly register their gun. Does this take into account those that DON'T properly store their gun. I'm betting that idiots that don't 'do the right things' as gun owners, are pumping up your stats.

    So while you paint a picture associating death and danger w/ gun ownership, I only countered with the fact that owning a pool is more harmful for your children (and the children that you invite), than owning a gun, statistically speaking. This can't be refuted. So for all the liberals (leftists, or whatever label you want to slap on them today) and gun-haters that shout you down in a discussion at a BBQ or party (ask me how I know), they become absolutely livid when I point out that their pool is more dangerous. They don't like my argument (ie, the truth), and sadly, don't like the messenger that bears this truth (me).

    I will agree that it's not a good idea to have a gun in the house, when your kids are 12 or under. Me? I'm waiting till my kids are at least 16 before i buy my gun. That is, unless my Chief of Police wants to refuse my 2nd amendment right to own a gun.

    So Dan, I ask you this. Who SHOULD I blame for Massachusett's retarted gun law? It certainly can't be my state's GOP (again, think unicorns), or state conservatives in general.

  • On 25 Dec 2013 in Why you should never, EVER believe what a cop says in court, AverageBear said:

    Dan8267 says

    Gun laws are state laws, and my state has been ruled by liberals for many decades.

    Another person who does not distinguish between the terms liberal and leftist? They mean the same thing in the same way that sandwich and airplane mean the same thing.

    Dan, spin it any way you want with symantics (leftist vs liberal). Democrats rule Massachusetts. Democrats by and large are more anti-gun than Replublicans. Democrats in Massachusetts have have made it VERY difficult, close to impossible for an average tax paying, home owning, law-abiding citizen to get a permit for a gun. This is not by accident. Not acknowledging this is not acknowledging reality here in Massachusetts.

  • On 25 Dec 2013 in Why you should never, EVER believe what a cop says in court, AverageBear said:

    Dan8267 says

    And if that weren't enough...

    You're more likely to kill a family member you've mistaken for an intruder.

    A family with a pool has waaay more chance of a child dying via drowning than a family w/ a registered gun. Care to put a spin on that fact? I'll take my chances protecting my family w/ a gun, than waiting for the police after it's too late.... Better to be judged by 12, then carried by 6......

  • On 24 Dec 2013 in Obama Lifts Health Mandate for Those With Canceled Plans, AverageBear said:

    Homeboy, how can you defend the Obamacare Turd Pie? Obama had to lie to the public, had to twist arms to get it passed (barely), refused to delay the individual mandate, but gave a free pass/extension to businesses. TONS of exemptions for friends/bundlers, etc. Each month passes and more and more of Americans who liked/wanted their 'shitty' plans (your words, not mine) can't keep them, because Obamacare's cryptic requirements now deem them illegal. Republicans saw this shitstorm years in advance, and tried to repeal or delay. And all during this time, you and the O-bots continued to drink the Kool-Aid while insulting those on pat.net who said, 'yeah, I have a big problem w/ Obamacare'.

    Well, the curtain has been raised and now all can see that Obamacare was ill-conceived, poorly written, poorly executed, and now (w/o Senate approval mind you), has been self-delayed. How can you defend a house that has already burned down? The MSM press who's in the bag for the Dems, will never really tell the tale of millions who lost their insurance, who can't even buy a slice of Obama's shit pie, because the website is fuckin' broke. But we'll know in Nov '14 what America thinks of Obama and his 'care'....... HE OWNS THIS MESS.

  • On 24 Dec 2013 in Why you should never, EVER believe what a cop says in court, AverageBear said:

    Dan8267 says

    Nonetheless, if you had an actual right to possess a gun -- and I mean a real right, not just a right on paper

    Like the ability to defend your property, your house, and your family in that house? Sounds like a legit, er "ACTUAL RIGHT" to possess a gun.

    Hell, even our retarted DA Martha Coakley tells us not to try and defend ourselves. "Wait for the authorities", she says.....Because like I said, "When seconds count, the cops are minutes away.

  • On 24 Dec 2013 in Why you should never, EVER believe what a cop says in court, AverageBear said:

    Dan8267 says

    Actually, it's conservatism. Conservatives -- and most cops are conservatives -- believe in centralized authority and privileges for "the worthy". Liberals, by definition, believe in rights, not privileges, and the equality of all under law. A right, by definition, applies to all persons and does not require approval or permission.

    Dan,

    You may or may not know this, but conservatives in Massachusetts are like unicorns; THEY DON'T EXIST (the elected officials, not the voters). It may make you feel good to wax eloquent in your belief that conservatives are to blame for me not being able to exercise my 2nd amendment rights in Massachusetts. The last time I checked, the Chiefs of Police don't make law, or gun laws in particular. They just enforce the law.

    That said, you are simply wrong. Gun laws are state laws, and my state has been ruled by liberals for many decades. And the way the liberals in my state have crafted (twisted) our gun laws, they basically stonewall you, when you want to get a gun permit. Unless you know the chief of police in your town, or one of his family members, there's a very good chance you won't get your gun permit. It's reality.

  • On 22 Dec 2013 in Why you should never, EVER believe what a cop says in court, AverageBear said:

    I believe cops have a tough job, and most are good. Unfortunately in my liberal state (Mass), they leave MY 2nd ammendment rights in the hands of the Chief of Police of my town (just like every other town in Mass). If you want to get a gun (and permit), you first need the blessing/permission of your town's chief of police. They can lie, stonewall, delay, and flat out say 'no' for any reason. That's liberalism for you. The Chief of Police in my town deciding my 2nd ammendment rights? Fucked up, aint' it? No need to worry about a home invasion or home protection? Because when seconds count, the cops are minutes away.... I don't blame the cops for this. I blame my state's liberals. Thanks for nothing.

  • On 14 Dec 2013 in Poll: Californians Gradually Souring on Unions, AverageBear said:

    tatupu70 says

    Is the problem that unions ask for the best deal that they can get? Or is the problem that management didn't live up to their end?

    Tatupu, if you are talking about gov't unions, the problem is that the 'owner' is the gov't itself. It doesn't really have to worry about 'going out of business', like the private sector. This is the disconnect. Because gov't can always raise taxes, and BS the voters as they usually do to meet union demands. They don't have to answer to angy shareholders to keep them, and the budget/spending in line.

Home   Tips and Tricks   Questions or suggestions? Mail p@patrick.net   Thank you for your kind donations

Page took 141 milliseconds to create.