TexasGranny

I am not going to get into a spitting match with you as I have other things to do. Adam does run banner ads also just like any other site on the internet. The DinarBanker banner came up when you opened the site and it is a banner ad (BTW, I run banner ads on my sites too, they are not affiliate ads but I do make money on them because I get paid for the advertising space on my site). However, the TampaDinar ad is a googlead. Wouldn't it be foolish of Adam to rent his advertising space to a company that has no relationship to the content on his site - That's the last I am going to post on this issue, however I will tell you this, continuing to post negative statements about Adam and this site will get you placed on Mod Review. If you do not like the way the site is run, you are free to go to any of the other dinar sites.

I am going to explain this one more time - if you hold your mouse over the ads and look at the link in the status bar at the bottom of your browser you will see that all of the ads have the words googleads at the beginning of the URL. Google ads are NOT, I repeat NOT affiliate ads. They are ads sent by the Google Adsense system and have no affiliate link in them. The ad content is determined by the content on DinarVets. A robot spiders through the site and sends back keywords to Google and they use that information to select and send the ads. Does Adam make money on these ads? Yes, of course, but as a owner of many websites and a user of Google Adsense, I can tell you that the only way Adam makes money from these ads is if someone "Clicks" on them. When you are visiting DV and browsing the forum or enjoying the chat room, the ads do not make any money for Adam. One other thing, since some of you think he is making a killing off these ads, payment for google ads starts at approximately 1 cent per click - the highest I have ever received for one click was $6 so unless everyone is clicking on the ads when they are here, Adam is not making a killing.

Looks like a 20% spread - 1M = $854.33 - $674.25 = $180.08 for a 20+% spread.

I imagine Sara has her hands full with all of the VIP renewals and upgrades. She has to do it manually so give her a little more time.

I am posting this information to try and help those of you that are having problems getting Adam's emails. First, let me explain the process used to send out multiple emails: (I know this as I have owned and operated many mailing lists for the last 12 years or so.) When Adam types an email, he triggers it to go out to a database of subscribed addresses. He cannot pick and choose who gets the email unless he has the subscriptions setup in groups, i.e., All Members, VIP Members, Platinum Members, etc. If he triggers the "All Member" group then the server simply follows his command. To reduce the load on the server, he can select the number he wishes to send during a certain period of time, i.e., 200 per hour, 500 per hour, etc. These are virtually the only controls Adam has in sending out his messages so, if you are not getting them, the problem must reside at your end of the cycle or you have simply NOT signed up to receive them. Now, when the server sends Adam's email to your address, it goes through a number of places before it lands in your inbox. If you look at the properties on any email you have received it should give you the "hidden headers" which tells you where it originated and all of the little stopovers on its way to you. If you use any of the free services, yahoo, hotmail, every1.net, and any of the others (about 211,000,000 responses on google search) then you take the chance of not receiving the message. In today's world, email services have installed "Spam" protectors on their servers and these do exactly what they are supposed to do and that is to block "spam" in any form. However, they are far from perfect and that is why they have also set up systems to allow you to enter the addresses you wish to receive mail from. That also is not perfect because sometimes they goof and stop that all important message you've been waiting on. If your email comes straight to your home computer via your ISP, most likely it comes through a "spam" filter there also. The one my ISP uses is really quite good - it finally quit trapping emails from Adam after I went to the effort to set it up with a whitelist. Now, some people think that if you have that address in your contact list on your computer the problem is solved. I'm here to tell you that Norton Internet Security goofs sometimes too and tags messages as spam when they are not. The final point is this - Adam will send all members an email message when the RV happens - do you want to receive it or not! Go to the effort to check your email system and be sure you have done everything you can to ensure Adam's message makes it to your inbox. If you are having problems with free email accounts on the web, check with your ISP and see if you are entitled to an email account through them. Set up Outlook Express or Microsoft Outlook or Windows Mail to receive your messages through your ISP. You will have much greater control. If that is not possible then opt for a gmail account. It seems to be less restrictive.

Each one will need to be a VIP in order for them to receive a VIP Certificate. It will have the VIP members name on it and only one person will be able to use it.

I believe that when you select the 3 month renew and click the button to check out - the next page will give you the option to enter a coupon code - this is when you enter "special25" .

Since you are VIP, why not ask this in the VIP section? Also, while you are there, you might want to read all of the information available then you would understand the advantage of Lifetime VIP

To all of the responses above: If you are VIP, simply go to the VIP Section of this forum and read Adam's post and emails.

If you read his thesis on the RV rate on http://dinarspeculation.com/ he has a pretty good bio on it at the beginning.

See this topic

Okay - the link that you are showing is an outdated site - notice all of the articles are old However, if you go to http://www.parliament.iq/ and then have the site translated instead of clicking on the English tab, you get up-to-date articles and information. It is obvious that no one is maintaining the English version. I do believe this site is the official site for the Iraq Parliament but you must also remember they have very limited connectivity with the rest of the world. For instance the server for this site is in the US (if it was in Iraq, it would be offline more than on). The same thing applies to cbi.iq

Already posted Viz - Aqua Dude posted earlier

The IQD exchange rate is pegged to the US Dollar - the only fluctuation is due to the USD going up or down. If you check the historical exchange on the IQD I believe the 52wk low is 1138 Wrong just checked netdania.com - here are the 52wk high and low 52wk High - 1183.30 52wk Low - 1132.10

duplicate post - closing this one

My Grandson (Green Zone) is out of Ft. Bragg so thought I would post this article. Security in Iraq good as U.S. troops work to meet deadline, Fort Bragg commander says By Henry Cuningham Military editor Security in Iraq is "very good," but the United States is not letting its guard down while moving out 39,000 troops and equipment by the Dec. 31 deadline, Fort Bragg's commander said Thursday. "Every move that we make is a tactical operation, per se," Lt. Gen. Frank Helmick said. "There are still bad guys roaming around the countryside." Helmick, commander of Fort Bragg and the 18th Airborne Corps, is spending this year as deputy commander for operations of U.S. Forces-Iraq. His corps headquarters has been in Iraq since January, forming the majority of the U.S. Forces-Iraq staff. He held a video teleconference with Fayetteville area reporters from Al Asad Air Base in Anbar province. "Some of the 18th Airborne Corps staff has already redeployed," Helmick said. "In November, many more will redeploy back." The corps is reducing its headquarters staff in proportion to the reduction of combat forces, he said. About 4,500 Fort Bragg soldiers are in Iraq, including the 2nd Brigade Combat Team of the 82nd Airborne Division, 189th Combat Service Battalion, the 82nd Sustainment Brigade, the 1st Theater Sustainment Command and the 20th Engineer Brigade headquarters. The U.S. Army Special Operations Command has a small number of Fort Bragg soldiers in Iraq, and they are expected to depart by Dec. 31, said Master Sgt. Eric Hendrix, a spokesman. The Iraqis seem to be on track to take over responsibilities for their own affairs as U.S. forces depart, Helmick said. "They are really continuing to help themselves provide for their internal defense and external defense right now and also improve the quality of life for their citizens," Helmick said. "Their military is the fastest-growing military in the world, and their capabilities and their ability to conduct operations really improves daily." Helmick focuses on day-to-day operations while the commander, Gen. Lloyd J. Austin III, deals with the U.S. ambassador and Iraqi officials. Austin is a former commander of Fort Bragg and the 18th Airborne Corps. The deadline for U.S. troops and equipment to be out of Iraq is 65 days away, Helmick said. The U.S. government has about 788,500 pieces of equipment in Iraq, including 23,900 wheeled vehicles, officials said. "We've got a heck of a lot of work to do on that," Helmick said. "We've done a heck of a lot of work already. We've been doing it for the last year, so this is no 'rush to the barn' at all. This is a very, very deliberate plan." U.S. troops have been in Iraq since the invasion in March 2003. In 2009, the United States had 170,000 soldiers at more than 500 bases in Iraq, Helmick said. Fifteen bases remain. At a peak in 2007, there were almost 200 attacks daily against Americans, but today that number is four or fewer, he said. The same year, there were 1,600 weekly attacks against Iraqis, and that number has dropped to fewer than 50 per week, he said. U.S. Forces-Iraq will move its command post to Kuwait for the final weeks of the operation, Helmick said. "We'll end up with all of us probably home, we think, before the holidays," Helmick said. "Half of what we have left remaining will be home probably before December." FAYOBSERVER

If it had taken place on I-30 between Dallas and Texarkana, chances might have been pretty good. But I don't drive through Kansas much anymore.

A wonderful way to start my day. This is beautifully done!

Already posted several times. Closing topic.

Your profile picture is not the one that shows up on posts. For that, you need an avatar. If you want to use your profile pic, you will probably need to reduce the size to a 90x90 and then upload it again as your avatar. To use an avatar, click on your signed in as link, then click settings, then click profile, scroll down to change avatar, click on it and follow the instructions for uploading or selecting from the catalogue your avatar. Hope this helps.

Congratulations PP - As the proud GrandMother of 23 I can relate to your excitement easily. My hubby and I tried to attend all birth happenings and we made most of them. Nothing like seeing that sweet little angel all snuggled up next to Momma. Congratulations again and keep them safe.

Please go to this link for an explanation of the reset.

Already posted Closing this topic

Posted on Wed, Oct. 26, 2011 Did Obama engage as U.S.-Iraqi troop talks faltered? By ROY GUTMAN McClatchy Newspapers Throughout the summer and autumn, as talks on a continued U.S. military presence in Iraq foundered, President Barack Obama and his point man on Iraq, Vice President Joe Biden, remained largely aloof from the process, logs released by the U.S. Embassy here suggest. The omission would be an unusual one, given the high priority U.S. officials had given to achieving an agreement for some sort of residual U.S. presence in Iraq after the Dec. 31 pullout deadline, and the White House labeled the suggestion inaccurate. A spokesman said the logs released by the embassy were incomplete. The listing provided by the embassy - drawn, the embassy said, from the White House website - indicates that Obama had no direct contact with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki between Feb. 13, when he telephoned the prime minister, until Friday, when he called al-Maliki to tell him U.S. troops would be withdrawn by Dec. 31. The embassy listing showed that Biden telephoned al-Maliki on Dec. 21, the day al-Maliki formed a new government, and visited here Jan. 18, but had no direct contact after that date, according to the official listing. Tommy Vietor, White House spokesman, noted, however, that al-Maliki's office released a statement Sept. 22 saying that al-Maliki and Biden had had a phone conversation that day in which the disposition of U.S. troops after Dec. 31 was discussed. He said the embassy list obviously had been prepared by someone not familiar with the full range of contacts. Vietor did not provide any details about the president's contacts. "The VP talked to senior Iraqi leaders multiple times during that period of time," Vietor wrote in an email. "The president also engaged with Iraqi leaders. Your story is totally wrong." U.S. Embassy officials, asked in July whether Biden was coming to help secure the deal, which military officers said needed to be concluded by July 31 for planning purposes, said the vice president was too busy trying to end the donnybrook in Congress over raising the national debt ceiling to visit Iraq. Iraqi government spokesman Tahseen al-Shaikhli said he could not explain the lack of contact between al-Maliki and top-level Americans. "You'll have to ask (Obama) why he didn't intervene before this, or call before this," he said. Al-Shaikhli said his government still hopes that an invitation that Obama extended for a meeting with al-Maliki in December might lead to an agreement between the two countries that would allow uniformed U.S. trainers to deploy to Iraq. "Maybe when they sit together, they will solve most of the problems," he said, adding, "Or maybe they will complicate it more." The issue of whether some U.S. troops might remain in Iraq after the Dec. 31 date, which was set by the so-called Status of Forces Agreement that the administration of President George W. Bush negotiated with the Iraqi government, had always been a complicated one - for Iraqi officials and Obama, who promised as a presidential candidate in 2008 that he would bring U.S. troops home from Iraq. Al-Maliki announced on May 11 that he would consult politicians at every level before deciding whether to ask the United States to keep troops here, and he said he hoped to reach a decision by July 31, the date set by the U.S. military. Iraqi officials soon were saying that the country was hoping that at least 10,000 to 15,000 troops would stay behind. Iraqi political leaders, with the exception of followers of the militant Shiite Muslim cleric Muqtada al-Sadr and veteran politician Ahmed Chalabi, indicated that they would favor the continued presence of U.S. forces, but they were less certain about the U.S. demand to provide immunity from prosecution for troops serving here. The top politicians, already gridlocked on other security issues, including who would serve as ministers of defense and the interior, were unable to agree at the initial sessions. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta flew to Baghdad on July 11, his first trip as defense secretary, but he didn't make any headway. "I'd like things to move a lot faster here, frankly," he told U.S. troops then. "Do you want us to stay, don't you want us to stay? Damn it, make a decision." A major complication was the insistence by the Obama administration that the accord go before the Iraqi parliament, something that in the end Iraqi politicians decided was impossible. But whether that restriction was necessary is an open question. Many status-of-forces agreements are signed at the executive level only, particularly in countries without elected legislatures. But the White House turned the issue over to the State Department's legal affairs office, reporters in Baghdad were told on Saturday. The lawyers gave a variety of options, but Obama chose the most stringent, approval by Iraq's legislature of a new agreement, citing as precedent that the Iraqi parliament had approved the 2008 agreement, reporters were told. By mid-September, Iraqi government spokesmen had lowered their goal for a continued presence of U.S. military trainers to about 3,000. But they were also determined not to give in on the American demand for immunity for U.S. troops. When the Iraqis announced that they'd reached a decision Oct. 4 to request trainers, the figure was "more than 5,000," according to Iraqi President Jalal Talabani, who told reporters Oct. 10 that Iraqi was seeking a "yes or no" response from the Americans. He said there would be no grant of immunity to Americans who stayed behind, however, something the Pentagon had previously said would be required if any troops were to remain. Whether an earlier Obama intervention would have changed the course of the talks is unknowable. Al-Shaikhli, the Iraqi spokesman, said his government still is hoping for an agreement that would provide American forces with "legal protection" rather than "immunity," meaning that the U.S. would retain jurisdiction if a soldier committed a crime against another soldier, but that Iraqi law would hold sway if the soldier were accused of injuring an Iraqi civilian. Al-Shaikhli said, however, that he didn't think such an agreement should be put before the Iraqi parliament. "We have to wait until the negotiation is finished," he said, "and we should not jump to a conclusion." (Steven Thomma contributed to this report from Washington.) Read more: http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/10/26/v-print/2472137/did-obama-engage-as-us-iraqi-troop.html#ixzz1bvd80cLO

Posted here closing this topic