View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
keycocker
Joined: 10 Jul 2005 Posts: 3598
|
Posted: Thu Oct 16, 2014 2:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
NW
You often lash out at those who doubt your sources . You say sources don't matter.
Have you changed your position on this? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
MalibuGuru
Joined: 11 Nov 1993 Posts: 9300
|
Posted: Thu Oct 16, 2014 2:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
isobars wrote: | mrgybe wrote: | Boggsy, I assume you went to cash soon after this sage warning a couple of months back? |
Dent, who has some good calls on his resume, is calling for a Dow of 6,000-7,000 before this is over ... and he's not alone. He said years ago to ignore a mere correction, that it's just a fake-out before the real deal. |
Iso, I'd take that gold you own and by SH to short the S&P 500 then. Double down on your bet. But remember, there is a whole lot of cash swirling around still looking for yield. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
boggsman1
Joined: 24 Jun 2002 Posts: 9120 Location: at a computer
|
Posted: Thu Oct 16, 2014 2:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
mrgybe wrote: | mrgybe wrote: | Boggsy, You continue to confuse realism with negativity. Most successful people and companies survey the entire picture. They don't gush breathlessly about one bright spot in that picture and then extrapolate to the whole. The French aristocracy thought everything was going swimmingly from their narrow standpoint until 1789 rolled around. When the economy is robust for most, the government isn't pathetically dysfunctional, and the world isn't in chaos, I'll join you in giddily proclaiming how great everything is. |
Boggsy, I assume you went to cash soon after this sage warning a couple of months back? |
Doing quite well. Zero energy holdings, which is where most of the carnage is. Been buying super cheap MLP's this week.
ISO
Harry dent , in 2010 said the same thing.... |
|
Back to top |
|
|
uwindsurf
Joined: 18 Aug 2012 Posts: 968 Location: Classified
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
nw30
Joined: 21 Dec 2008 Posts: 6485 Location: The eye of the universe, Cen. Cal. coast
|
Posted: Thu Oct 16, 2014 3:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
keycocker wrote: | NW
You often lash out at those who doubt your sources . You say sources don't matter.
Have you changed your position on this? |
I couldn't have said both of those things because they contradict each other.
So how could I change my mind, on what, saying sources do matter, or not lashing out at those who doubt my source?
I'll say this, sources do matter, and you have the right to lash out at any source, as do I.
For instance, with the exception of Forbes, on the list that youwindsurf has taken the time to compile, just for my benefit (what a guy), I have problems with the bias of all the others on his list, no better than the one bajaDean used.
The Forbes piece pointed out that the study they were talking about used only 600 people from New Jersey, that's hardly conclusive. The study didn't even mention if the 600 were registered voters, and they also said that MSNBC viewers were the 2nd most uninformed, whereas the talkingpointsmemo places MSNBC as the most trusted.
There are inconsistencies all over the place, but thanks for playing, you too youwindsurf. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
pueno
Joined: 03 Mar 2007 Posts: 2807
|
Posted: Thu Oct 16, 2014 4:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
.
Republicans Pave Way to All-White Future
By Francis Wilkinson
Even Senator John McCain has surrendered. A steadfast supporter of immigration reform with a pathway to citizenship, McCain essentially acknowledged yesterday in Georgia that his party's anti-immigration forces have demolished any hope of soon legalizing the roughly 11 million undocumented immigrants in the U.S.
McCain's assessment is as unimpeachable as it is irrational. In an interview with the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, he said that, "I understand now, especially in my home state of Arizona, that these children coming, and now with the threat of ISIS … that we have to have a secure border."
Follow that? Immigration reform, including the legalization of millions of immigrants already living in the U.S., is on hold because tens of thousands of Central American children have surrendered to border authorities. Also, because a sadistic army is killing people in Syria and Iraq. McCain, often a summer soldier when the forces of demagogy call, was perhaps too embarrassed to link Ebola to the new orthodoxy; of course, others already have.
It's hard to see how Republicans walk this back before 2017 -- at the earliest. What began with the national party calling for immigration reform as a predicate to future Republican relevancy has ended with complete capitulation to the party's anti-immigration base. Conservatives are busy running ads and shopping soundbites depicting immigrants as vectors of disease, criminality and terrorism, a 30-second star turn that Hispanic and Asian voters, in particular, may not entirely relish.
"The day after the 2014 election," e-mailed immigration advocate Frank Sharry, Republicans will "face a future defined by an anti-Latino and anti-immigrant brand and the rapid and relentless growth of Latino, Asian-American and immigrant voters."
Sharry is bitter about the Republican rejection of comprehensive immigration reform. And public opinion has turned against immigration in the wake of the border influx of Central Americans earlier this year. But is Sharry's analysis skewed? There has never been a convincing "day after tomorrow" plan for Republicans if they abandon reform and embrace their most anti-immigrant wing.
Yet it looks as if Republicans have done just that. "Secure the border" is an empty slogan and practical nightmare. But if you're a conservative politician desperate to assuage (or exploit) what writer Steve Chapman calls the "deep anxieties" stirred by "brown migrants sneaking over from Mexico," it's an empty slogan with legs. It will be vastly easier for Republicans running in 2016 to shout "secure the border" than to defy the always anxious, politically-empowered Republican base. Perhaps Republicans in Congress will muster some form of Dream Act for immigrant youth or a visa sop to the tech industry, but they seem incapable of more.
In that case, the path of least resistance -- and it has been many years since national Republicans have taken a different route -- will be to continue reassuring the base while alienating brown voters. (After six years in which Republicans' highest priority has been destruction of the nation's first black president, it's doubtful black voters will be persuadable anytime soon.) The party's whole diversity gambit goes out the window. The White Album plays in perpetuity on Republican turntables.
That would be a significant problem if it resulted only in the marginalization and regionalization of the nation's conservative party. But a racial hunkering down in an increasingly multi-racial nation will not be a passive or benign act. Pressed to the demographic wall, Republicans will be fighting to win every white vote, not always in the most high-minded manner. Democrats, likewise, will have a powerful incentive to question the motives and consequences of their opponents' racial solidarity.
Immigration has always been about more than race. November's election will go a long way toward making it about nothing else.
. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
uwindsurf
Joined: 18 Aug 2012 Posts: 968 Location: Classified
|
Posted: Thu Oct 16, 2014 4:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
nw30 wrote: | keycocker wrote: | NW
You often lash out at those who doubt your sources . You say sources don't matter.
Have you changed your position on this? |
I couldn't have said both of those things because they contradict each other.
So how could I change my mind, on what, saying sources do matter, or not lashing out at those who doubt my source?
I'll say this, sources do matter, and you have the right to lash out at any source, as do I.
For instance, with the exception of Forbes, on the list that youwindsurf has taken the time to compile, just for my benefit (what a guy), I have problems with the bias of all the others on his list, no better than the one bajaDean used.
The Forbes piece pointed out that the study they were talking about used only 600 people from New Jersey, that's hardly conclusive. The study didn't even mention if the 600 were registered voters, and they also said that MSNBC viewers were the 2nd most uninformed, whereas the talkingpointsmemo places MSNBC as the most trusted.
There are inconsistencies all over the place, but thanks for playing, you too youwindsurf. |
"I don't care" - nw30 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
nw30
Joined: 21 Dec 2008 Posts: 6485 Location: The eye of the universe, Cen. Cal. coast
|
Posted: Thu Oct 16, 2014 6:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
youwindsurf wrote: | nw30 wrote: | keycocker wrote: | NW
You often lash out at those who doubt your sources . You say sources don't matter.
Have you changed your position on this? |
I couldn't have said both of those things because they contradict each other.
So how could I change my mind, on what, saying sources do matter, or not lashing out at those who doubt my source?
I'll say this, sources do matter, and you have the right to lash out at any source, as do I.
For instance, with the exception of Forbes, on the list that youwindsurf has taken the time to compile, just for my benefit (what a guy), I have problems with the bias of all the others on his list, no better than the one bajaDean used.
The Forbes piece pointed out that the study they were talking about used only 600 people from New Jersey, that's hardly conclusive. The study didn't even mention if the 600 were registered voters, and they also said that MSNBC viewers were the 2nd most uninformed, whereas the talkingpointsmemo places MSNBC as the most trusted.
There are inconsistencies all over the place, but thanks for playing, you too youwindsurf. |
"I don't care" - nw30
AAARRR!!!! |
Fixed. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
isobars
Joined: 12 Dec 1999 Posts: 20935
|
Posted: Thu Oct 16, 2014 6:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
nw30 wrote: | sources do matter |
Yup, but often only on one side of the issue. When an auto transmission shop told me at 100,000 miles "Your tranny is in great shape; keep doing whatever you're doing", I BELIEVED them. I did, and it was still flawless at 245,000 miles. When the NYT or BSNBC lambastes their hero, I BELIEVE it. When Hannity, OTOH, lays into NYT's/BSNBC's hero, I spot check the claimed facts independently. I have yet to catch him in a substantial error he didn't catch and correct first.
For example, Jon Stewart (and the likes of the Huffington Post and Media Matters ... the auto tranny/disinformation porn shops of the internet) has repeatedly said that polls show those who watch Fox News are the "most consistently misinformed media viewers". Politifact analyzed that claim and declared it "false", partly because Hannity's and O'Reilly's viewers are highly informed, among other reasons such as that such polls contain only 3 or 4 questions, some subjective. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
real-human
Joined: 02 Jul 2011 Posts: 14890 Location: on earth
|
Posted: Thu Oct 16, 2014 7:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
isobars wrote: | nw30 wrote: | sources do matter |
Yup, but often only on one side of the issue. When an auto transmission shop told me at 100,000 miles "Your tranny is in great shape; keep doing whatever you're doing", I BELIEVED them. I did, and it was still flawless at 245,000 miles. When the NYT or BSNBC lambastes their hero, I BELIEVE it. When Hannity, OTOH, lays into NYT's/BSNBC's hero, I spot check the claimed facts independently. I have yet to catch him in a substantial error he didn't catch and correct first.
For example, Jon Stewart (and the likes of the Huffington Post and Media Matters ... the auto tranny/disinformation porn shops of the internet) has repeatedly said that polls show those who watch Fox News are the "most consistently misinformed media viewers". Politifact analyzed that claim and declared it "false", partly because Hannity's and O'Reilly's viewers are highly informed, among other reasons such as that such polls contain only 3 or 4 questions, some subjective. |
what a stuuuupid analogy/equivalency.... a transmission shop saying do what ever you are doing so you got 245,000 miles and still in your mind flawless? to be related to Fox news that has been shown to lie and lie again. What percent of Fox viewers still think that saddam had anything to do with the 911 terrorists attacks. My gosh Ronald reagun had more to do with it than Saddam did including the old chemical weapons. My gosh the vast majority of the chemical weapons were from Reagun helping Saddam use weapons of mass destruction on even his own people. Remember it was Reagun arming terrorists all over the world. _________________ when good people stay silent the right wing are the only ones heard. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
|