Null



auburn41

Members
  • Content count

    11
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

13 Good

About auburn41

  • Rank
    AU Fan

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I believe you really believe that, yet you call me "clueless." So, I guess all the people at DOJ and at FBI that no longer work there, or have been re-assigned have nothing to do with any nefarious/illegal investigation of the Trump Campaign. When all this is done, there will be many people in jail from the Obama administration. You don't have to bother replying, I think I already know how you will respond.......pretty much the same as all the 31K other posts. Man you must be tired from all of that typing!!
  2. Then it is settled. Trump will be happy to test your theory that the respective presidential candidate will welcome that type investigation. What is good for the goose......of course, I thought this was the United States and that we were all protected, even Presidential candidates, from an obtrusive government. I hope Trump doesn't turn Big Brother loose on you. Good luck!
  3. OK, then I'm sure you will have no problem with the Trump Administration putting FBI informants (call them whatever you like) in the opposition party's Presidential campaign in 2020, right? I'm sure Trump and his people will promise not to do anything with any information they uncover that will help him get re-elected. You see how this works? Nothing to see here folks.....many should go to jail over this. My one question is....what did Obama know and when did he know it (I guess that is technically two questions)?
  4. auburn41

    Top Ten Happiest & Unhappiest States...

    Yeah, there is an election coming up soon in 2018 and 2020. I wonder how the press and the Democrats will react when the Trump administration utilizes the US Intelligence Services to spy on and monitor the Democratic presidential campaign? I guess the precedent has been set, right? I know one thing for sure, the mainstream media would not accept that behavior as OK or be apologists for Trump and the Republicans the way they have been for the Obama administration and Democrats!
  5. Since when is OK to call half the US voting population retarded. Is this the "Smack Talk Forum?" I would not call US Citizens that vote for a Democrat "retarded." It is too much of an insult to retarded people!
  6. auburn41

    Professor Blasts CNN

    So how does this affect CNN's ratings as far as the number of viewers they get based on having TV's in the airport (so called Out-of-Home)? No one actually watches it. I guess when you have a captive audience that is not paying attention, it still counts for something, right? Nielsen has announced the addition of two new subscribers to its Out-of-Home audience measurement service: CNN and Turner Sports. Under terms of the agreement, both CNN and Turner Sports will get weekly reports that include daily data for program and commercial audience estimates for TV viewing in offices, airports, gyms, bars, hotels and basically anywhere one can watch television outside of the home.
  7. It is amazing to me that you can disagree with my "simplistic stats." Some people call them facts. Every time it has been tried, cutting taxes (letting Americans keep more of their own money) raises tax revenues to the Federal Government in the long run. My guess is it works that way because an economy is not a "zero-sum game. I'm sure that people allowed to keep more of their own money find ways to use their money to grow the economy. I'm not an economist, I happen to be an engineer, so I can't explain it better than my simplistic stats of Federal Tax Revenues INCREASED (almost doubled in 8 years) during the Reagan years. Anyway, I hope you have a good rest of the day.
  8. I have neither the time or the inclination to demonstrate the Washington Post is lying or manipulating numbers. In my original post I linked to verifiable numbers as well showing that tax revenues to the Federal Government almost doubled during Reagan's "Trickle Down Farce" as described by an upstream poster (since that poster got no admonishment from you I guess you agree with that sentiment). My only point is that taxes were cut and revenues increased. Checkmate. The Washington Post fact checker can say whatever he/they want....revenues increased. BTW, Pres. Kennedy similarly cut taxes in 1964. Guess what....revenues increased. Seems like a pattern to me. For the third time I will state that I don't believe I can change your opinion with my posts and I know for sure you won't change mine, so lets disagree agreeably. Have a nice day.
  9. From that "Bastion of Truth" the Washington Post......re-read the last three sentences of my post😀
  10. Actually, if you search on the web for total tax revenue collected by the the US Govt., by year, you will see the following. The tax revenue that the US Govt collected from tax payers almost doubled from the time that Reagan came into office until the end of his second term. I would say very clearly that trickle down actually worked. As someone who is old enough to remember the economy of the Carter administration, I can tell you the economy boomed during Reagan's administration. The revenue almost doubled because people that got to keep more of their own money invested it in new business and hired a bunch of people that were not working before. All of those new wage earners began paying taxes and you get a doubling of the tax revenue. Anyway, just my two cents. If the same thing happens here that usually happens on the inter webs.....my post will not change your mind. And just to make it clear, any subsequent post from you, will not change my mind. Have a good day!! Tax Revenue by Year.tiff
  11. auburn41

    B. Feldman interviews CGM

    47-17-1 and an SEC West championship along the way to being fired (or quitting) after starting 1-5 with your top two (three?) centers going down before taking a single snap in your final season says there's a wee bit more to it than that... Been reading this board for years but this is my first post. 47-17-1 does not sound that bad unless it is framed by the first 22 games where his record was 20-1-1. So 17-16 really sux and we should all be able to agree on that!