Dow gains 120 points, Republicans blame Obama

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Not really....

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Stocks sustained gains Wednesday after the Federal Reserve held interest rates near historic lows and signaled the economy has finally started to stabilize.

The Dow Jones industrial average (INDU) added 120 points, or 1.3%, giving up bigger gains. The S&P 500 (SPX) index rose 11 points, or 1.1%. The Nasdaq composite (COMP) advanced 29 points, or 1.5%.

Wall Street rallied leading up to the Fed announcement as signs of improvement in the housing market pushed investors back into stocks following a two-day retreat.

The market seesawed a bit after the announcement, with the Dow, Nasdaq and S&P 500 pushing toward fresh 2009 highs, before trimming those gains by the close.

"The Fed reinforced what investors already knew, that the economy has gotten a little better," said James Barnes, fixed income portfolio manager at National Penn Investors Trust.

CNNMoney.com Market Report - Aug. 12, 2009

Just remember to be intelectually honest chris. Now ANYTHING that happens to the economy is 100% obama's baby according to you.

If it keeps getting better its because of Obama's Plans
If it gets worse its because of Obama's plans.

Just wait until his record national defecit and debt spending catches up to us......just remember when it does who made it happen, Obama.

And I hope I'm wrong about that last bit and he actually decides to make the cogress pay down the debt.

But of course, you right wing zealots don't have to be "intellectually honest" you can blame the bad economy on Obama before he even takes office and deny him credit after he takes office and the economy improves.

That was a good one....funny stuff you should take that on the road and start a comedy tour.

Go read some of my bush bashing over the stimulus plan and then come back and post again assumption master.

 

[edthecynic]

Just remember to be intelectually honest chris. Now ANYTHING that happens to the economy is 100% obama's baby according to you.

If it keeps getting better its because of Obama's Plans
If it gets worse its because of Obama's plans.

Just wait until his record national defecit and debt spending catches up to us......just remember when it does who made it happen, Obama.

And I hope I'm wrong about that last bit and he actually decides to make the cogress pay down the debt.

But of course, you right wing zealots don't have to be "intellectually honest" you can blame the bad economy on Obama before he even takes office and deny him credit after he takes office and the economy improves.

That was a good one....funny stuff you should take that on the road and start a comedy tour.

Go read some of my bush bashing over the stimulus plan and then come back and post again assumption master.

What does Bush have to do with the fact that CON$ were blaming the bad stock market on Obama BEFORE he took office claiming the market was reacting to what he planned to do and then being intellectually dishonest by not giving him credit now that it is headed up again???

Obama Recession in Full Swing
November 6, 2008
RUSH: The Obama recession is in full swing, ladies and gentlemen. Stocks are dying, which is a precursor of things to come. This is an Obama recession. Might turn into a depression. He hasn't done anything yet but his ideas are killing the economy. His ideas are killing Wall Street.

January 15,2009
RUSH: It's entirely fair to call this Obama's stock market because it's reacting to what Obama's plans are for the economy. It's not reacting to Bush. Bush isn't on anybody's mind here.
Financial markets are a rough predictor of future economic performance, and based upon what the markets know of Obama's plans, it's giving him a failing grade. I'm not being political. The markets deal in bottom lines. It takes the pulse of millions of investors, both in this country and abroad, to report the results, unfiltered.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Let me be the douchenheimer and answer you with a question

Since when did anything cons do have to do with my postings that you deemed "far right"?

I wasn't saying those things then, i was the guy saying "NO BAILOUTS F-U-BUSH then the guy saying WTF OBAMA CUT THE BUSH SPENDING HABITS OUT NOW!!!!" so WTF is your problem?

I've been consistent....i've been angry at bush for not paying down the debt when he had the opportunity prior to the beginning of 2007 and i'll be just as angry at obama for continuing to increase my country's debt.....debt only serves to pull wealth out of our nation.

 

[edthecynic]

I think the stock market will make big gains over the next few years and Obama will get a lot of undeserved credit for that.

Obama Recession in Full Swing
November 6, 2008
RUSH: The Obama recession is in full swing, ladies and gentlemen. Stocks are dying, which is a precursor of things to come. This is an Obama recession. Might turn into a depression. He hasn't done anything yet but his ideas are killing the economy. His ideas are killing Wall Street.

January 15,2009
RUSH: It's entirely fair to call this Obama's stock market because it's reacting to what Obama's plans are for the economy. It's not reacting to Bush. Bush isn't on anybody's mind here.
Financial markets are a rough predictor of future economic performance, and based upon what the markets know of Obama's plans, it's giving him a failing grade. I'm not being political. The markets deal in bottom lines. It takes the pulse of millions of investors, both in this country and abroad, to report the results, unfiltered.[/quote]

Not really....

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Stocks sustained gains Wednesday after the Federal Reserve held interest rates near historic lows and signaled the economy has finally started to stabilize.

The Dow Jones industrial average (INDU) added 120 points, or 1.3%, giving up bigger gains. The S&P 500 (SPX) index rose 11 points, or 1.1%. The Nasdaq composite (COMP) advanced 29 points, or 1.5%.

Wall Street rallied leading up to the Fed announcement as signs of improvement in the housing market pushed investors back into stocks following a two-day retreat.

The market seesawed a bit after the announcement, with the Dow, Nasdaq and S&P 500 pushing toward fresh 2009 highs, before trimming those gains by the close.

"The Fed reinforced what investors already knew, that the economy has gotten a little better," said James Barnes, fixed income portfolio manager at National Penn Investors Trust.

CNNMoney.com Market Report - Aug. 12, 2009

Just remember to be intelectually honest chris. Now ANYTHING that happens to the economy is 100% obama's baby according to you.

If it keeps getting better its because of Obama's Plans
If it gets worse its because of Obama's plans.

Just wait until his record national defecit and debt spending catches up to us......just remember when it does who made it happen, Obama.

And I hope I'm wrong about that last bit and he actually decides to make the cogress pay down the debt.

Let me be the douchenheimer and answer you with a question

Since when did anything cons do have to do with my postings that you deemed "far right"?

I wasn't saying those things then, i was the guy saying "NO BAILOUTS F-U-BUSH then the guy saying WTF OBAMA CUT THE BUSH SPENDING HABITS OUT NOW!!!!" so WTF is your problem?

I've been consistent....i've been angry at bush for not paying down the debt when he had the opportunity prior to the beginning of 2007 and i'll be just as angry at obama for continuing to increase my country's debt.....debt only serves to pull wealth out of our nation.

You keep trying to change the subject away from the "intellectual honesty" you require of Libs but have not required of any CON$ on this thread who deny credit to Obama for the improved market after already having blamed him BEFORE he even took office.

Only a CON$ervative zealot would try to pass themselves off as "consistent" because they were angry at Bush but who express no demand for CON$ to have the same "intellectual honesty."

Had you demanded the same "intellectual honesty" from those who said Obama will get "UNDESERVED CREDIT" for the improving economy, then I would buy your "consistency" claim.

 

[Toro]

Yes, I see your problem very clearly now. In the Scientific community, we have people like yourself as well. Your problem, in this case, is that you are assuming that 'Republican' and 'Democrat' mean the exact same thing throughout history and so therefore your data is valid. That's like including data for a day when the laboratory equipment was out of calibration because, after all, it's the same laboratory equipment. That's just silly, but understandable since you are just a slave to data regardless of how it was obtained or a clear understanding of the parameters being measured.

Until you can understand this error, the data you present is useless.

But I do see another problem which I've already discussed. You don't believe what you are doing is wrong and you don't believe you are an idealogue. This is an even bigger problem. Again, in the scientific community, your presentation of data would be slammed so many times that you would eventually get the message. However, if someone is living in denial about who they are, all bets are off. I'll pop back in from time to time to do an 'idealogue intervention' for you in the hopes that you will realize the lie you are telling yourself and change your ways. In the meantime, good luck to you.

And in the investment business, we have a name for guys like you: “Unemployed.”

You have made this into a political pissing match. “They weren’t really Republicans then! They weren’t really Democrats then! You don’t understand the parties! They were different! You’re Canadian!” Yeah, yeah, as if all that matters.

“The data is useless!” No, the data is not useless. You do not understand it, and you appear to understand even less all the variables surrounding the outcome and the context in which it is set, which is odd given that you are in the scientific community.

It’s amusing to have you lecture me about the uselessness of data when you present financial market returns for a mere 20 years, and then somehow ascribe that to politics. What a joke. If an analyst came to me with an investment idea on the market based on 20 years of data, I’d throw him out of my office. Presenting such limited data without understanding context, history, and extraneous forces is exactly why Wall Street totally fucked up the financial crisis, and why your argument is irrelevant.

Back before we collapsed, I used to listen to Wall Street rocket scientists with no understanding of financial history try to sell me structured finance products. They would tell me why I should buy a swap with underlying collateral of a collateralized debt obligation rated AAA constructed out of mezzanine subprime residential mortgage backed securities. In English, that means they wanted me to invest in subprime bonds. They based their argument just like you have – over the past 20 years, the default rate for subprime mortgages had been 5%-7% on average, and for the AAA CDO security they were pushing to lose money, the default rate would have to be 40%, a once in 20,000 year event. This was even more unlikely given that home prices had risen for 60 years.

Well, we know how that turned out, don’t we?

Those guys who tried to sell me the CDO, the guys who tried to sell me a product based on 20 years worth of data, have been fired, as have thousands like them.

Looking at 20 years worth of data can not only be useless in finance, it can give you completely wrong conclusions because there are many variables. For someone like yourself in the scientific community, it is akin to identifying a variable you want to test but not controlling for any other variables. That is why saying “You don’t understand the political parties! You can only look at 20 years of data!” is a simply flat out wrong. It is irrelevant. There are so many variables outside of politics that making such a statement is not only pointless, it is dangerous.

But hey, I’m willing for you or anyone to step up and prove me wrong. This discussion started with me saying to PI that the market will perform better under President Obama than under President Bush. If you think I am wrong, put your money where your mouth is. Walk the talk. Enter into a swap with me. I say the market will do better under Obama than it did Bush. Email me and we can set this up. If you want to trade against me and think you can outsmart me in the markets, I’m more than happy to oblige.

Here is the performance of the market under Bush from when W was inaugurated.

And here is the performance of Obama since he was inaugurated. It’s still early and there is still 3.5 years (or more) to go.

Now, if it were true that what really mattered to market performance was policy and ideology – as you are arguing – and that short time periods are the proper time frames to judge performance, then let’s look at how socialist countries have done. We all know, after all, that socialism is “bad” and freedom is “good,” at least when it comes to the performance of capital markets, and that this truism is universal and applicable everywhere all the time.

Here is the performance of the US stock market when Bush was President relative to the socialist countries of Sweden and France. The white line is Sweden, the green line is France, and the red line is the US.

<Oops! Graph to come!>

The socialist countries did better than the American market when Bush was President! My, oh my! How ego-deflating!

Let’s look at another “socialist” country Canada, where they have, as you said, “Keynesianism” and have “nationalized everything!” Canada is the white line, the US is in green. Look at how much better those socialists did than America under Bush! It must be painful for a freedom-loving American ideologue to see Canadian socialists do so much better!

Heck, here is Venezuela – home of the Bolivaran Revolution – compared to the US under Bush! Venezuela is white, the US green. It’s not even close.

But you keep comforting yourself with your beliefs xsited. You keep thinking that what really matters are ideology and the policies of the political parties.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

I think ed has a learning disability that prevents him from grasping an ENTIRE post before he blathers off on something that would make no sense in the FULL CONTEXT of my post.

 

[pete]

Oil prices also shed $4 a barrel as the Reuters/University of Michigan consumer sentiment survey showed a growing number of Americans grew increasingly worried over jobs and wages. Its preliminary reading of the index of confidence fell to 63.2 from 66.0 in July, well below market expectations for a reading of 68.5.

The weak data eclipsed reports that showed U.S. industrial output gained for the first time in nine months and that inflation was muted in July. For details, see [ID:nN14304812]

"The consumer confidence number weighed heavily on the market's thinking today and added to concerns that the market has rallied too far, too fast against the growth outlook," said Tom Sowanick, chief investment officer at Clearbrook Partners in Princeton, New Jersey.

GLOBAL MARKETS-Stocks, oil fall as US consumers' mood sour | Markets | Markets News | Reuters

 

[pete]

The Dow Jones industrial average fell 76.79, or 0.8 percent, to 9,321.40 after falling as much as 165 points after the consumer sentiment survey was released.

The Associated Press: Stocks drop as investors worry about consumers

So much for the gain!

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Yes, I see your problem very clearly now. In the Scientific community, we have people like yourself as well. Your problem, in this case, is that you are assuming that 'Republican' and 'Democrat' mean the exact same thing throughout history and so therefore your data is valid. That's like including data for a day when the laboratory equipment was out of calibration because, after all, it's the same laboratory equipment. That's just silly, but understandable since you are just a slave to data regardless of how it was obtained or a clear understanding of the parameters being measured.

Until you can understand this error, the data you present is useless.

But I do see another problem which I've already discussed. You don't believe what you are doing is wrong and you don't believe you are an idealogue. This is an even bigger problem. Again, in the scientific community, your presentation of data would be slammed so many times that you would eventually get the message. However, if someone is living in denial about who they are, all bets are off. I'll pop back in from time to time to do an 'idealogue intervention' for you in the hopes that you will realize the lie you are telling yourself and change your ways. In the meantime, good luck to you.

And in the investment business, we have a name for guys like you: &#8220;Unemployed.&#8221;

ROFLMNAO...

Now let the record reflect that Toro just posted 4 feet of insipid drivel and snappy little graphs which prove absolutely NOTHING.

(And THAT douschebag, brings an end to you busting MY BALLS over lengthy posts...)

Again Toro comes to repeat her long discredited cries that Markets do better under leftists Presidents or Leftist controlled legislatures...

And again she wants to ignore that Gains which comes as a result of CRASHES WHICH THE LEFTISTS CAUSED! Which means that those 'gains' aren't actually 'GAINS' DUMBASS.. Meaning that when a Market is at 13000 and Leftist policy drives that market down to 6800... GAINS do not begin until the market is BACK to where it was BEFORE YOU CRASHED IT.


Now Toro wants to pretend that all of that is merely POLITICS... that money can be made on the rising market... which is true... but the premise she is selling is FALSE and that premise is that Leftists are better stewards of the equity markets than are Americans... and that is simply not the case.

Money can be made on decling markets... that such is the case in NO WAY proves that declining markets are preferred...


And it's just no more complex than that... its just that as simple as it is, it is vastly beyond the means of the average Canadian to understand it.

 

[Toro]

Again Toro comes to repeat her long discredited cries that Markets do better under leftists Presidents or Leftist controlled legislatures...

Since you aren't very bright PI, I'll spell it out to you clearly.

The returns of the market have historically had little to do with the party in power. The returns are driven primarily by variables outside of legislative politics.

The data that I have presented does not confirm that the market does better under leftist governments. The data I have presented confirms that there is no evidence that the market does better under right-wing governments.

In fact, what has been statistically confirmed is that the market usually does better in the year following when the government's budget deficit expands and it does worse when it contracts. Fiscal irresponsibility used to be a Democrat trait only but now the Republicans have happily become just as financially reckless.

So if you are an Obama-hater, and you are using the stock market to support your anti-Obama argument, you better be careful because you are almost certainly going to look stupid in the future. The market almost certainly will do better under Obama than it did under Bush.

But if you don't believe me and you think I'm wrong, then walk the talk and enter into a swap with me that the market will do worse under Obama than Bush. Money talks, bullshit walks.

 

[Toro]

Or to put it another way, there is no evidence that the market does worse under Leftist governments, despite what the right-wing shills and hacks might say.

Here is the graph of Sweden, France and the US when Bush was in office. France is the white line, Sweden is the green line and America is the red line. The US did worse.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Again Toro comes to repeat her long discredited cries that Markets do better under leftists Presidents or Leftist controlled legislatures...

Since you aren't very bright PI, I'll spell it out to you clearly.

Gee Dousche-bag that's mighty Canadian of ya...

The returns of the market have historically had little to do with the party in power. The returns are driven primarily by variables outside of legislative politics.

Yeah returns on equities are pretty much like the returns on everything else... 'what was the share bought for and what was it sold for...

YOU want to look at one facet of the process... and take the streaming values out of the equation... in the graph where you show market performance under Bush... you want to project that Bush is a Republican... you want to focus on the latter side of the graph where equity values plummeted... ignoring the earlier steady increase in values from where the policies of the former administration resulted in an attack upon the US; an attack which occurred in the physical heart of the equities market; which caused a massive and sudden DECLINE in the value of that market... you want to imply that such a decline is irrelevant to Federal Policy... but in truth, Federal policy made it possible for those who perpetrated that attack to DO SO, thus such policy is INTRINSIC TO THAT DECLINE.

You THEN want to claim that the steady increase in equities, which resulted from the destabilization of the US Security and the US economy, which REALIZED a TRILLION DOLLAR LOSS due to that 3 hour event which was made possible by the panty waist, pre-9-11 'no one is plotting an attack on the US' paradigm... a paradigm established by the feminized pie in the sky, ideological left; was irrelevant to the policies instituted, which were at diametric opposition TO THE FORMER Administration and which are now diametrically opposed to the CURRENT Administration; you want to set aside ANY relevance to the policy which prevented FURTHER attacks, which would have certainty driven the US economy, thus the equity market down FURTHER...

Hells bells, according to YOU, as far as the Market GAINS are concerned, Bush should have surrendered to Islam and driven the market to ZERO... IMAGINE THE POSSIBILITIES IN TERMS OF GAISN THERE!

But that is ALL in keeping with your wanting to set aside the Leftist policy which caused the Market crash in 08, when the Real Estate market wents tits up; as a 100% result of Leftist policy whihc forced mortgage lenders to set aside their fiduciary responsibility to lend money based upon sound, time tested actuarial lending models...

Now... one can't be taken seriously as a expert on ANYTHING, if one wants to claim that Market Performance is purely a function of the natural gains which follow a CRASH... and this is because THOSE GAINS are realized at the expense of those who LOST...

Now the SWEET Irony here, friends... is that Toro is one of the Centrists who sing the everpresent mantra that "Capitalism" NEEDS the Left to MODERATE it... You know that one... its the one where the erudite Centrist proudly stands to DEFEND Capitalism... against the onslaught of Leftism; and does so by pointing out that what's needed is a MIXED Economy...

The Irony is found where the CENTRISTS, in particular THIS Centrist, who comes to note a LIE... "Markets sitting under Leftist government outperform markets which sit under American control." Where the Centrist is CELEBRATING the starkly REDUCED EQUITY VALUE and SETS ASIDE THE FACT THAT THE CRASH THAT REDUCED THOSE PRICES FOR THOSE SHARES WAS CAUSED BY LEFTIST POLICY AND COST TENS IF NOT HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF PEOPLE THEIR LIFE'S SAVINGS!

In FACT: Had the Left been prevented from gaining power; they would not have instituted their ridiculous policy and the real-estate market would not have BUBBLED; thus would not have POPPED and the equity markets would not have lost 50% of their value to give these REALLY GREAT SHARE PRICES... The Market would have continued on a steady, sustainable climb, with minor corrections here and there as segments of the economy ebb'd and flowed; along with the natural errors and lucky strikes of the process...

The data that I have presented does not confirm that the market does better under leftist governments. The data I have presented confirms that there is no evidence that the market does better under right-wing governments.

Yeah... your data is insufficient to establish anything but the tracking stream of the respective market for the relevant period...

What establishes that equity market do better under American control is that American policy decidedly favors COMMERCE... it also establishes the inverse where Leftist governments institute additional liabilities into commerce, thus discouraging risk, by punishing profits...

In fact, what has been statistically confirmed is that the market usually does better in the year following when the government's budget deficit expands and it does worse when it contracts. Fiscal irresponsibility used to be a Democrat trait only but now the Republicans have happily become just as financially reckless.

Golly... I wonder if that is because the policies which induce budget deficits are a function of Leftist policy which caused the Economy to shrink... thus the period of deficit spending is correlated to the period which follows a shrinking economy... which the natural cyclical order requires is a GROWING economy... one which would have GROWN faster, absent the deficit spending, but grows nonetheless DESPITE the deficit spending.

Equities, under natural circumstances, increase in value as the underlying value of the secured asset increases in value; thus where a company grows in terms of sales... it grows to accomodate those sales, thus it's inherent value increases... this usually occurs when the economy within which that company is riding EXPANDS... OKA: increasing in value. Ergo; where the economy expands, the underlying mechanisms which sustain that economy also increase in value...

Again... its not particularly complex... just well beyond the means of the fascist Canadian to get their resin soaked 'feelings' around it, Hoser.

Fiscal irresponsibility is a LEFTIST trait... it just used to be that Leftists were confined to the Democrat Party... but fascism having completely dominated the DEMOCRAT party has now infected the Republican party... and sadly, for you... the irrepsponsible socialist policy of fascism remains irresponsible without regard to which brand of fascist is implementing it.

So if you are an Obama-hater, and you are using the stock market to support your anti-Obama argument, you better be careful because you are almost certainly going to look stupid in the future. The market almost certainly will do better under Obama than it did under Bush.

ROFL...

Yeah... cause my hate for irresponsible, tyrannical fascist policy will override my means to remind people of the CRASH which the Left caused, that provided for the Market to be ABLE TO RETURN TO WHERE IT WAS BEFORE THE LEFT CRASHED THE REAL ESTATE MARKET; and I'll never be able to PROVE the DECADES LONG EFFORTS BY THE LEFT which prevented and continues to PREVENT the US from DRILLING FOR OIL, Natural Gas, build Nuke power plants and all the OTHER hinderances, such as BUILDING NEW REFINERIES... to DISTILL THOSE NATURAL RESOURCES INTO FUELS... and the VERY REAL THREATS THAT THEY ARE GOING TO ADD TRILLIONS IN NEW TAXES AND REGULATORY FEES ON CARBON FUELS... all of which THE LEFT PRODUCED TO DRIVE THE PRICE OF GAS To $5.00/gal just prior to the Market COLLAPSING... and which will be at the foundation of when the proice of GAS GOES TO $10... I'll just grab a copy of the BOY King explaining how he wasn't upset that gas was $5/gal, he was just dissapointed that the price had risen so quickly...

Don't worry about me, Toro, I'll be ok...

But if you don't believe me and you think I'm wrong, then walk the talk and enter into a swap with me that the market will do worse under Obama than Bush. Money talks, bullshit walks.

OH! SWEET! You want to exchange value for value over the consideration of future performance, against past performance... that works for me... except I wouldn't do so using the Bush Presidency... As you know I am of the mind which looks to the incontrovertible fact that pro-commerce, thus pro-freedom policy which is implmented by an American controlled legislature will always outperform the periods wherein a Leftist legislature, without regard to their Party affiliation is seated. So I'll set the terms... to the period of 1994-1998; against the 2009-2013 period of the Leftist Hussein regimes Excutive and legislative anti-American, tyrannical control of the US.



I'll swap your privilige to come into this forum and express yourself for my privilege... and we're going to define the scope of that 'performance' by summing the values of the respective markets, calculated to neutralize INFLATION... and not the deceptive political cranks version of inflation... I will calculate inflation upon three primary indices... the price of a barrel of gasoline, the cost of a block of Wheat and the posted hourly rate of the largest advertisement in the NYC Yellow pages for PLUMBERS, correlated from today's price and the relevant price of the date of the next swearing in of the US Executive... roughly 1/20/2013.

If that works for you... it works for me.

 

[Toro]

OH! SWEET! You want to exchange value for value over the consideration of future performance, against past performance... that works for me... except I wouldn't do so using the Bush Presidency... As you know I am of the mind which looks to the incontrovertible fact that pro-commerce, thus pro-freedom policy which is implmented by an American controlled legislature will always outperform the periods wherein a Leftist legislature, without regard to their Party affiliation is seated. So I'll set the terms... to the period of 1994-1998; against the 2009-2013 period of the Leftist Hussein regimes Excutive and legislative anti-American, tyrannical control of the US.



I'll swap your privilige to come into this forum and express yourself for my privilege... and we're going to define the scope of that 'performance' by summing the values of the respective markets, calculated to neutralize INFLATION... and not the deceptive political cranks version of inflation... I will calculate inflation upon three primary indices... the price of a barrel of gasoline, the cost of a block of Wheat and the posted hourly rate of the largest advertisement in the NYC Yellow pages for PLUMBERS, correlated from today's price and the relevant price of the date of the next swearing in of the US Executive... roughly 1/20/2013.

If that works for you... it works for me.

I will take that as an admission that you believe that the market under Obama will do better than it did under Bush. Wise move PI. Its a dumb bet otherwise.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

OH! SWEET! You want to exchange value for value over the consideration of future performance, against past performance... that works for me... except I wouldn't do so using the Bush Presidency... As you know I am of the mind which looks to the incontrovertible fact that pro-commerce, thus pro-freedom policy which is implmented by an American controlled legislature will always outperform the periods wherein a Leftist legislature, without regard to their Party affiliation is seated. So I'll set the terms... to the period of 1994-1998; against the 2009-2013 period of the Leftist Hussein regimes Excutive and legislative anti-American, tyrannical control of the US.



I'll swap your privilige to come into this forum and express yourself for my privilege... and we're going to define the scope of that 'performance' by summing the values of the respective markets, calculated to neutralize INFLATION... and not the deceptive political cranks version of inflation... I will calculate inflation upon three primary indices... the price of a barrel of gasoline, the cost of a block of Wheat and the posted hourly rate of the largest advertisement in the NYC Yellow pages for PLUMBERS, correlated from today's price and the relevant price of the date of the next swearing in of the US Executive... roughly 1/20/2013.

If that works for you... it works for me.

I will take that as an admission that you believe that the market under Obama will do better than it did under Bush. Wise move PI. Its a dumb bet otherwise.

ROFLMNAO...

Well only a fool in the extreme could respond to my argument with such profound irrelevance.

Again friends, Toro only wants to look at the GAINS and to overtly dismiss the LOSSES which were caused by the SAME LEFTIST POLICY as is endorsed and implemented by the BOY King ...

And this is why you should NEVER take your investment dollars to ANY equities trader who, on ANY LEVEL, defends the policies of FDR or supports the fascist policies of the ideological left...

Never forget, the ideological left is an INVALID ideology... such policies as those endorsed by the left, are untenable... mathematically and morally; thus moderate, centrist, progressive, liberals who call for "mixed" economies are endorsing nothing BUT leftism and as such are nothing less than the 'Domestic Enemies' which all Federal oathes require one swear their honor to defend against and whim we americans will deal with once and for all, when Nature determines that its time to deliver "The Cure."

Just keep your powder dry and and wait for these panty waist, feminized leftist fucks to make their move... then gut them like a collective fish, to the last pathetic bitch... and rest assured few bitches are more pathetic than Canadian "men."

 

[Toro]

I didn't think you'd take the bet.

That's twice now you've backed down - first Palin for President and now Obama v Bush.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

I didn't think you'd take the bet.

That's twice now you've backed down - first Palin for President and now Obama v Bush.

ROFLMNAO... that's so sad... But it wouldn't be so pathetic if she didn't really BELIEVE IT!

The thing about the Leftists is how they can so resemble an American on the outside; without a SCINTILLA of the guts that actually makes an American... an American.

Now this should help explain why the left is unable to see how anyone could argue the existance of "American Exceptionalism." First they lack the intellectual means to recognize America as being anything beyond a reference of geography; second the only thing exceptional about the Leftist ideology is it's deception... as liars go... NOTHING can 'outperform' a Leftist liar. It's pure instinct to these clowns...

Now for the record, as is nearly always the case, where a Leftist comes to porject a given trait upon their opposition, they are typically found exemplifying that trait... and this is no exception.

I clearly accepted the offer to exchange value for value, at a future point, wherein a given set of pre-determined parameters were established. The value set for exchange was the means of the contestants to contribute to thise site and the parameters were determined to be the performance of the equity markets; where I determined that the Hussein Markets would not out perform the Markets of the Conservative Legislature from 1994-1998... and that such performance would be adjusted for inflation... with inflation determined by the price of a Barrel of Oil, a Block of Wheat and the posted hourly rate, of the biggest/first plumber in the NYC Yellow pages; each set from the beginning of the Hussein regime to the end of his term on roughly 20 January, 2013.

This douschebag has obtusely rejected that acceptance and now comes to project the inverse. The same is true for the other offer she made... where SHE rejected the offer and now comes to project the inverse.

It's a LIE! And it's no more complex than that... BUT! What's more is THIS lie is, for all intents and purposes, the same value of lie; comprised of the same obtuse revisionism of the lies which comprise the above 'opinion' that Equity Markets subject to Leftist policy out perform equity markets subjec to pro--commerce policy of American controlled legislatures...

And this friends is what we call CHECK MATE!

The record is clear and quite incontrovertible... with the empty denials of the opposition being wholly irrelevant to the immutable truth embedded in that record.

And the best part... it took no effort what so ever to refute it...

Below is the post wherein the douschebag in question first sought to reject the acceptance of her offer... thus setting the TRUTH to her LIE!

OH! SWEET! You want to exchange value for value over the consideration of future performance, against past performance... that works for me... except I wouldn't do so using the Bush Presidency... As you know I am of the mind which looks to the incontrovertible fact that pro-commerce, thus pro-freedom policy which is implmented by an American controlled legislature will always outperform the periods wherein a Leftist legislature, without regard to their Party affiliation is seated. So I'll set the terms... to the period of 1994-1998; against the 2009-2013 period of the Leftist Hussein regimes Excutive and legislative anti-American, tyrannical control of the US.



I'll swap your privilige to come into this forum and express yourself for my privilege... and we're going to define the scope of that 'performance' by summing the values of the respective markets, calculated to neutralize INFLATION... and not the deceptive political cranks version of inflation... I will calculate inflation upon three primary indices... the price of a barrel of gasoline, the cost of a block of Wheat and the posted hourly rate of the largest advertisement in the NYC Yellow pages for PLUMBERS, correlated from today's price and the relevant price of the date of the next swearing in of the US Executive... roughly 1/20/2013.

If that works for you... it works for me.

I will take that as an admission that you believe that the market under Obama will do better than it did under Bush. Wise move PI. Its a dumb bet otherwise.

Notice that the offer was accepted and that the terms were established... where upon she simply determined that the terms which normalized the equation would leave her with no means to prevail... thus she opted to REJECT THE ACCEPTANCE and project the inverse (the lie) onto her oppositionn...

CLASSIC Leftist revisionism... and a micro-example of precisely how Fascists and Communists became historical 'right-wingers'... and again...

The BEST PART IS THAT SHE ACTUALL BELIEVES IT!

Funny stuff...