[Djshakes]

Yeah breeze, I wouldn’t be waving your flags and jumping around just yet. 300 points is nothing compared to the swings we have been seeing. Also, if OB gets elected, look for huge sell-offs in Dec before the capital gains tax will be implemented. The stock market is driven by a lot of things, including emotion. This is an emotional day in which most people are in a postive mood. If we maintain a steady 300 point gain for over a week after he is elected, I will be optimistic. However, I think any turn around should be attributed to the end of a bearish market as we have seen stocks bouncing off the bottom and consolidating for a couple weeks now. Giving full credit to OB and not the technicals is equal to me praying for rain for the past two weeks and having it actually rain this morning in SD. Besides, all the analyst talk about “stock price drops if OB is elected have already been factored in to current prices” which isn’t a positive connotation. I know you believe he is your Messiah and after he is elected he will simply say “RISE” while making an upward motion with his hands and the DOW will break 12,000, but it isn’t going to be this simple. I wish it was.

[Djshakes]

Yeah breeze, I wouldn’t be waving your flags and jumping around just yet. 300 points is nothing compared to the swings we have been seeing. Also, if OB gets elected, look for huge sell-offs in Dec before the capital gains tax will be implemented. The stock market is driven by a lot of things, including emotion. This is an emotional day in which most people are in a postive mood. If we maintain a steady 300 point gain for over a week after he is elected, I will be optimistic. However, I think any turn around should be attributed to the end of a bearish market as we have seen stocks bouncing off the bottom and consolidating for a couple weeks now. Giving full credit to OB and not the technicals is equal to me praying for rain for the past two weeks and having it actually rain this morning in SD. Besides, all the analyst talk about “stock price drops if OB is elected have already been factored in to current prices” which isn’t a positive connotation. I know you believe he is your Messiah and after he is elected he will simply say “RISE” while making an upward motion with his hands and the DOW will break 12,000, but it isn’t going to be this simple. I wish it was.

[Djshakes]

[quote=cashflow]Why are men so fascinated with guns? Sorry guys, I think it’s just cause of a lack of something….What the heck do we even have guns like that available in this country?!? I’m sorry you don’t need to shoot a deer with something like that, where’s the sport in that? Deer doesn’t have a chance in ……!

I think hunting should go back to prehistoric days…good ole bow in arrow…at least if some wacko gets ahold of that, a person has a chance to get outta the way![/quote]

Deer are near impossible to shoot no matter what gun you have. Trust me, I am from WI. If hunting was only done with bow and arrow, you would have an uncontrolled herd. This uncontrolled herd would lead to more car accidents, higher insurance premiums in concentrated areas, starvation of the herd, etc. Not to mention, a larger percentage of deer shot with a bow and arrow are not retrieved because they can travel farther before dying.

Gun control has never proven to decrease crime. Look at England. If criminals wants to harm you, they will find a way. Only you won’t be able to defend yourself because being the upstanding citizen, you turned in your guns when the government regulated/banned them. I suppose you can use a kitchen knife, but that isn’t much of a challenge when the burglar has an unregistered glock. Usually anything the government implements is exactly the opposite of what should be done and causes the exact opposite of the desired affect.

[Djshakes]

[quote=cashflow]Why are men so fascinated with guns? Sorry guys, I think it’s just cause of a lack of something….What the heck do we even have guns like that available in this country?!? I’m sorry you don’t need to shoot a deer with something like that, where’s the sport in that? Deer doesn’t have a chance in ……!

I think hunting should go back to prehistoric days…good ole bow in arrow…at least if some wacko gets ahold of that, a person has a chance to get outta the way![/quote]

Deer are near impossible to shoot no matter what gun you have. Trust me, I am from WI. If hunting was only done with bow and arrow, you would have an uncontrolled herd. This uncontrolled herd would lead to more car accidents, higher insurance premiums in concentrated areas, starvation of the herd, etc. Not to mention, a larger percentage of deer shot with a bow and arrow are not retrieved because they can travel farther before dying.

Gun control has never proven to decrease crime. Look at England. If criminals wants to harm you, they will find a way. Only you won’t be able to defend yourself because being the upstanding citizen, you turned in your guns when the government regulated/banned them. I suppose you can use a kitchen knife, but that isn’t much of a challenge when the burglar has an unregistered glock. Usually anything the government implements is exactly the opposite of what should be done and causes the exact opposite of the desired affect.

[Djshakes]

[quote=cashflow]Why are men so fascinated with guns? Sorry guys, I think it’s just cause of a lack of something….What the heck do we even have guns like that available in this country?!? I’m sorry you don’t need to shoot a deer with something like that, where’s the sport in that? Deer doesn’t have a chance in ……!

I think hunting should go back to prehistoric days…good ole bow in arrow…at least if some wacko gets ahold of that, a person has a chance to get outta the way![/quote]

Deer are near impossible to shoot no matter what gun you have. Trust me, I am from WI. If hunting was only done with bow and arrow, you would have an uncontrolled herd. This uncontrolled herd would lead to more car accidents, higher insurance premiums in concentrated areas, starvation of the herd, etc. Not to mention, a larger percentage of deer shot with a bow and arrow are not retrieved because they can travel farther before dying.

Gun control has never proven to decrease crime. Look at England. If criminals wants to harm you, they will find a way. Only you won’t be able to defend yourself because being the upstanding citizen, you turned in your guns when the government regulated/banned them. I suppose you can use a kitchen knife, but that isn’t much of a challenge when the burglar has an unregistered glock. Usually anything the government implements is exactly the opposite of what should be done and causes the exact opposite of the desired affect.

[Djshakes]

[quote=cashflow]Why are men so fascinated with guns? Sorry guys, I think it’s just cause of a lack of something….What the heck do we even have guns like that available in this country?!? I’m sorry you don’t need to shoot a deer with something like that, where’s the sport in that? Deer doesn’t have a chance in ……!

I think hunting should go back to prehistoric days…good ole bow in arrow…at least if some wacko gets ahold of that, a person has a chance to get outta the way![/quote]

Deer are near impossible to shoot no matter what gun you have. Trust me, I am from WI. If hunting was only done with bow and arrow, you would have an uncontrolled herd. This uncontrolled herd would lead to more car accidents, higher insurance premiums in concentrated areas, starvation of the herd, etc. Not to mention, a larger percentage of deer shot with a bow and arrow are not retrieved because they can travel farther before dying.

Gun control has never proven to decrease crime. Look at England. If criminals wants to harm you, they will find a way. Only you won’t be able to defend yourself because being the upstanding citizen, you turned in your guns when the government regulated/banned them. I suppose you can use a kitchen knife, but that isn’t much of a challenge when the burglar has an unregistered glock. Usually anything the government implements is exactly the opposite of what should be done and causes the exact opposite of the desired affect.

[Djshakes]

[quote=cashflow]Why are men so fascinated with guns? Sorry guys, I think it’s just cause of a lack of something….What the heck do we even have guns like that available in this country?!? I’m sorry you don’t need to shoot a deer with something like that, where’s the sport in that? Deer doesn’t have a chance in ……!

I think hunting should go back to prehistoric days…good ole bow in arrow…at least if some wacko gets ahold of that, a person has a chance to get outta the way![/quote]

Deer are near impossible to shoot no matter what gun you have. Trust me, I am from WI. If hunting was only done with bow and arrow, you would have an uncontrolled herd. This uncontrolled herd would lead to more car accidents, higher insurance premiums in concentrated areas, starvation of the herd, etc. Not to mention, a larger percentage of deer shot with a bow and arrow are not retrieved because they can travel farther before dying.

Gun control has never proven to decrease crime. Look at England. If criminals wants to harm you, they will find a way. Only you won’t be able to defend yourself because being the upstanding citizen, you turned in your guns when the government regulated/banned them. I suppose you can use a kitchen knife, but that isn’t much of a challenge when the burglar has an unregistered glock. Usually anything the government implements is exactly the opposite of what should be done and causes the exact opposite of the desired affect.

[Djshakes]

[quote=patientlywaiting][quote=Djshakes]
You are dumber than you sound if you actually believe that any politician (no matter what party) is looking out for anyone other than themselves. Bottom line, if a polictician comes up with an economic policy…normall it is crap. For example, the community reinvestment act. Sure, those “bleeding hearts” had well intentions….but just because ideological intentions were good, doesn’t mean the implementation is going to create good results. [/quote]

The difference is that at least one side has good intentions.

I would admit that the conservative side is smarter in that the singular focus on the pocketbook is a much easier approach.

It’s much easier to focus on your bank account here and now that trying to save the world. You don’t have to think about anything but your personal interest.

So why do you think that Paulson and Bush asked for this bailout if Republicans believe that government involvement is so bad?

[/quote]

The only difference between Republican and Democratic intention is that Democrats make their intentions seem like they are good for the people. Much like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton claim to want to eradicate racism…all the while promoting and instigating it. At least with a Republican you know where you stand.

[Djshakes]

[quote=patientlywaiting][quote=Djshakes]
You are dumber than you sound if you actually believe that any politician (no matter what party) is looking out for anyone other than themselves. Bottom line, if a polictician comes up with an economic policy…normall it is crap. For example, the community reinvestment act. Sure, those “bleeding hearts” had well intentions….but just because ideological intentions were good, doesn’t mean the implementation is going to create good results. [/quote]

The difference is that at least one side has good intentions.

I would admit that the conservative side is smarter in that the singular focus on the pocketbook is a much easier approach.

It’s much easier to focus on your bank account here and now that trying to save the world. You don’t have to think about anything but your personal interest.

So why do you think that Paulson and Bush asked for this bailout if Republicans believe that government involvement is so bad?

[/quote]

The only difference between Republican and Democratic intention is that Democrats make their intentions seem like they are good for the people. Much like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton claim to want to eradicate racism…all the while promoting and instigating it. At least with a Republican you know where you stand.

[Djshakes]

[quote=patientlywaiting][quote=Djshakes]
You are dumber than you sound if you actually believe that any politician (no matter what party) is looking out for anyone other than themselves. Bottom line, if a polictician comes up with an economic policy…normall it is crap. For example, the community reinvestment act. Sure, those “bleeding hearts” had well intentions….but just because ideological intentions were good, doesn’t mean the implementation is going to create good results. [/quote]

The difference is that at least one side has good intentions.

I would admit that the conservative side is smarter in that the singular focus on the pocketbook is a much easier approach.

It’s much easier to focus on your bank account here and now that trying to save the world. You don’t have to think about anything but your personal interest.

So why do you think that Paulson and Bush asked for this bailout if Republicans believe that government involvement is so bad?

[/quote]

The only difference between Republican and Democratic intention is that Democrats make their intentions seem like they are good for the people. Much like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton claim to want to eradicate racism…all the while promoting and instigating it. At least with a Republican you know where you stand.

[Djshakes]

[quote=patientlywaiting][quote=Djshakes]
You are dumber than you sound if you actually believe that any politician (no matter what party) is looking out for anyone other than themselves. Bottom line, if a polictician comes up with an economic policy…normall it is crap. For example, the community reinvestment act. Sure, those “bleeding hearts” had well intentions….but just because ideological intentions were good, doesn’t mean the implementation is going to create good results. [/quote]

The difference is that at least one side has good intentions.

I would admit that the conservative side is smarter in that the singular focus on the pocketbook is a much easier approach.

It’s much easier to focus on your bank account here and now that trying to save the world. You don’t have to think about anything but your personal interest.

So why do you think that Paulson and Bush asked for this bailout if Republicans believe that government involvement is so bad?

[/quote]

The only difference between Republican and Democratic intention is that Democrats make their intentions seem like they are good for the people. Much like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton claim to want to eradicate racism…all the while promoting and instigating it. At least with a Republican you know where you stand.

[Djshakes]

[quote=patientlywaiting][quote=Djshakes]
You are dumber than you sound if you actually believe that any politician (no matter what party) is looking out for anyone other than themselves. Bottom line, if a polictician comes up with an economic policy…normall it is crap. For example, the community reinvestment act. Sure, those “bleeding hearts” had well intentions….but just because ideological intentions were good, doesn’t mean the implementation is going to create good results. [/quote]

The difference is that at least one side has good intentions.

I would admit that the conservative side is smarter in that the singular focus on the pocketbook is a much easier approach.

It’s much easier to focus on your bank account here and now that trying to save the world. You don’t have to think about anything but your personal interest.

So why do you think that Paulson and Bush asked for this bailout if Republicans believe that government involvement is so bad?

[/quote]

The only difference between Republican and Democratic intention is that Democrats make their intentions seem like they are good for the people. Much like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton claim to want to eradicate racism…all the while promoting and instigating it. At least with a Republican you know where you stand.

[Djshakes]

[quote=patientlywaiting]In order to understand what is happening, you have to understand politics.

Democrats did the right thing for the country, even though that meant siding with Bush. Republicans didn’t.

Guys, it’s actually very admirable of you to admit that you’re voting your pocketbooks.

Unfortunately, the majority of Republican voters in the heartland (or in Lakeside) don’t vote their pocketbooks. They vote on issues such as faith, abortion, gay marriage, etc…

As a progressive, I should be kinder but as far as I’m concerned, those “poor” Republican voters are simply hopeless. I say “let them eat cake”. But liberals have “bleeding hearts” and can’t do that.

I can understand people in Carmel Valley or La Jolla voting their pocketbooks but those Republican voters in rural Mississippi are simply dumb.

So FLU, as a well-to-do professional, you should be happy that idiots are born everyday.

[/quote]
You are dumber than you sound if you actually believe that any politician (no matter what party) is looking out for anyone other than themselves. Bottom line, if a polictician comes up with an economic policy…normall it is crap. For example, the community reinvestment act. Sure, those “bleeding hearts” had well intentions….but just because ideological intentions were good, doesn’t mean the implementation is going to create good results.

[Djshakes]

[quote=patientlywaiting]In order to understand what is happening, you have to understand politics.

Democrats did the right thing for the country, even though that meant siding with Bush. Republicans didn’t.

Guys, it’s actually very admirable of you to admit that you’re voting your pocketbooks.

Unfortunately, the majority of Republican voters in the heartland (or in Lakeside) don’t vote their pocketbooks. They vote on issues such as faith, abortion, gay marriage, etc…

As a progressive, I should be kinder but as far as I’m concerned, those “poor” Republican voters are simply hopeless. I say “let them eat cake”. But liberals have “bleeding hearts” and can’t do that.

I can understand people in Carmel Valley or La Jolla voting their pocketbooks but those Republican voters in rural Mississippi are simply dumb.

So FLU, as a well-to-do professional, you should be happy that idiots are born everyday.

[/quote]
You are dumber than you sound if you actually believe that any politician (no matter what party) is looking out for anyone other than themselves. Bottom line, if a polictician comes up with an economic policy…normall it is crap. For example, the community reinvestment act. Sure, those “bleeding hearts” had well intentions….but just because ideological intentions were good, doesn’t mean the implementation is going to create good results.

[Djshakes]

[quote=patientlywaiting]In order to understand what is happening, you have to understand politics.

Democrats did the right thing for the country, even though that meant siding with Bush. Republicans didn’t.

Guys, it’s actually very admirable of you to admit that you’re voting your pocketbooks.

Unfortunately, the majority of Republican voters in the heartland (or in Lakeside) don’t vote their pocketbooks. They vote on issues such as faith, abortion, gay marriage, etc…

As a progressive, I should be kinder but as far as I’m concerned, those “poor” Republican voters are simply hopeless. I say “let them eat cake”. But liberals have “bleeding hearts” and can’t do that.

I can understand people in Carmel Valley or La Jolla voting their pocketbooks but those Republican voters in rural Mississippi are simply dumb.

So FLU, as a well-to-do professional, you should be happy that idiots are born everyday.

[/quote]
You are dumber than you sound if you actually believe that any politician (no matter what party) is looking out for anyone other than themselves. Bottom line, if a polictician comes up with an economic policy…normall it is crap. For example, the community reinvestment act. Sure, those “bleeding hearts” had well intentions….but just because ideological intentions were good, doesn’t mean the implementation is going to create good results.

[Author]

Posts