Jump to content

My, Aren't We Full of Surprises


Recommended Posts

Looks like the Dems don't want Edwards to be a contender for vice president.

Funny thing about the timing of this

 

Too bad we can't grow up and decide whatever mistakes people make in their private lives are none of our business. It was better in the old days when all the media people knew about the affairs that presidents and other politicos had, but were too genteel to report them.

679325[/snapback]

 

"Too bad we can't grow up and decide whatever mistakes people make in their private lives are none of our business."

 

Ok, this isn't a political site, BUT...since it's already been brought up, there's one thing missing in this generally true statement, as it relates to John Edwards. The problem here is that John Edwards made it a point to make his marriage a central theme of his campaign- particularly the point about his wife's tragic diagnosis of cancer. Anyone remember how when it was first announced and he was going to call a press conference, all the reporters were saying, "Oh, well he's probably going to drop out of the race"? When he didn't, there was a feeling of, "What the heck was that all about?!" (Due to the seriousness of the situation, not too many said that out loud, but it was almost palpable.) I could go on (and on), but you get the idea. Bottom line- he is reaping what he sowed. Now let's move on.

 

Returning to our regularly scheduled program, today was one of the most appalling days I've seen in a very, very long time, in the sense that it TRULY was the type of day where the goldilocks types go, "See? We CAN have it all!" It wasn't just the size of the stock rally; it was the way everything just happened all at the same time! Bonds AND stocks AND the dollar skyrocketing, while commodities crash and Fannie Mae announces such horrible news? Let's see Congress investigate THAT! Yeah, right. But don't worry, bears; it's only temporary. Let the bulls have their cake and eat, too. They'll be throwing it up soon enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 284
  • Created
  • Last Reply
I can tolerate alot, but I don't like politicians who lie in front of cameras as Edwards has done. He also lied to his sick wife, which is disgusting. I don't care what your political affiliation is... if you can lie to your family over and over again, in public, then you don't deserve to hold office.

679335[/snapback]

Two of the most popular presidents ever, JFK and FDR, had affairs that were well known to members of the media. I've seen surveys that have had the number of married men admitting to having affairs at anywhere between 40-70%. The general thought by the people who ran the surveys was that the estimates were low because many would not admit to it, even in an anonymous survey. (The numbers for women were somewhat less but still around 30-50%.)

 

You would think that people in public life would understand the magnitude of the problem that this kind of behavior can cause, and yet it's seemingly MORE common among politicos. One study that I read about actually measured testosterone levels of male politicians and found them to be quite a bit above average. The "profession" seems to select for aggressive, arrogant people.

 

I in no way condone the behavior, which I find disgusting, but I think that if you dug around just about any politician you could come up with stuff like this. Unless it actually affects national security, like JFK's liaisons with a Mafia boss's girlfriend, and the one that many people claim was with an actual Russian spy ( ! ) I don't think the public has a right to know. It isn't any of my business.

 

Then again, I think that ALL politicians at the national level are liars and arrogant.

 

Of course continental Europeans (as opposed to the Brits) laugh at us for caring about stuff like this. For them to care about a sex scandal it has to have many more elements to mock, like costumes and bondage and... well, I'll leave that to your imagination. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Returning to our regularly scheduled program, today was one of the most appalling days I've seen in a very, very long time, in the sense that it TRULY was the type of day where the goldilocks types go, "See?  We CAN have it all!"  It wasn't just the size of the stock rally; it was the way everything just happened all at the same time!  Bonds AND stocks AND the dollar skyrocketing, while commodities crash and Fannie Mae announces such horrible news?  Let's see Congress investigate THAT!  Yeah, right.  But don't worry, bears; it's only temporary.  Let the bulls have their cake and eat, too.  They'll be throwing it up soon enough.

679339[/snapback]

We can only hope.

 

Unfortunately, that's all we can do.

 

:P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hmmmm...wonder if this means Obama is a lock...

 

Look what happened last time they threw out the fiscally irresponsible Reagan/Bush cabal in 1992.

679342[/snapback]

... but look at how long there was a downtrend before the move up. And look how long the uptrend was until recently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah I've had to change directions a lot this week alone!

 

But my take from here is that unless da bears reverse today's action in it's entirety quickly next week, we goin' up, and possibly for some time to come.

 

If they do reverse it, then the abyss waits below.

 

I think this AM's pivot was that important......................

679311[/snapback]

 

:huh: :huh:

 

Just to be clear for the slow kid in the back of the room.

 

:unsure: :unsure:

 

Are you suggesting that "the bear market" would have come to an end? Or that we might be facing a helluvalarger rally than bears might otherwise feel able to contemplate, before ultimately, the thing reverses down to plumb new eventual lows (i.e., that "the bear market" is not over)?

 

:huh:

 

Or does the action to date - and even continuation next week of this week's rally - not suffice to establish the persistence of "the bear market"?

 

:blink:

 

Was that clear?

 

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looks like the Dems don't want Edwards to be a contender for vice president.

Funny thing about the timing of this

 

Too bad we can't grow up and decide whatever mistakes people make in their private lives are none of our business. It was better in the old days when all the media people knew about the affairs that presidents and other politicos had, but were too genteel to report them.

679325[/snapback]

 

post-1339-1218236196.jpg

 

 

post-1339-1218236226.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Tell a friend

    Love Stool Pigeons Wire Message Board? Tell a friend!
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • ×
    • Create New...