Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Weak-end thread June 10-13th.


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
386 replies to this topic

#31 DrStool

DrStool

    Chief of Stock Proctology

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 83,387 posts

Posted 10 June 2004 - 10:08 PM

Your Anals are loaded. Take a subscribatory and download RIGHT NOW!

30 Day Intro Subscribatory. Just $16.99! Get In RIGHT NOW!

If your portfolio has you feeling irregular, for fast, long lasting relief, take a subscribatory. And support your local Stool!

#32 depends

depends

    Doctor of Stock Proctology

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,198 posts

Posted 10 June 2004 - 10:28 PM

Several big earthquakes today in the 6 range.

http://www.iris.edu/seismon/

http://aslwww.cr.usg...ata/heli2.shtml

Biggest one was a 6.9 in KAMCHATKA PENINSULA, RUSSIA
http://earthquake.us...akes/usjnbd.htm

#33 ConfusedAssRev1

ConfusedAssRev1

    Stock Proctology Intern

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 89 posts

Posted 10 June 2004 - 10:45 PM

Haven't read all posts recently, so this may have already been posted. Feel free to insert any name you like at the end.

A Republican Senator died and went to heaven. As he stood in front of St. Peter at the Pearly Gates, he saw a huge wall of clocks behind him. He asked, " What are all those clocks?

"St. Peter answered, " Those are lie clocks. Everyone on earth has a Lie-clock. Every time you lie, the hands on your clock will move."

"Oh," said the Senator, " who's clock is that?'
"That's Mother Teresa's. The hands have never moved indicating that she never told a lie.
"Who's clock is that ?" asked the Senator again.

"That's Abraham Lincoln's clock. The hands have only moved twice, telling us that Abe only told two lies in his entire life"

The Senator then asked, "Where's George Bush's clock?"
St. Peter answered, " It's in Jesus' office, he's using it as a ceiling fan"

#34 brian4

brian4

    Clinical Professor of Stock Proctology

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,361 posts

Posted 10 June 2004 - 10:50 PM

Butters- don't let EWI mess with your mind Prechter is still a master at Socionomics but Hochberg couldn't hit a Bulls Ass with a banjo if he was sitting on it! ;)

#35 Butterfield 8

Butterfield 8

    Master of Stock Proctology

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,740 posts

Posted 10 June 2004 - 11:51 PM

(whew)

#36 BearWash

BearWash

    Stock Proctology Intern

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 50 posts

Posted 11 June 2004 - 12:10 AM

First, we do not post material from other sites without a link. You MUST identify the source and link to it.

Second.

The reposted material is clearly bullcrap.


Trying to get back at me for criticizing your permitting of the anti-Reagan diatribe a few weeks back, eh (complete with Alzheimers put-downs)? And it was so timely.

My three-year subscription has been cancelled. I'll join Chibear and the others on the alternative site.

#37 wndysrf

wndysrf

    Dean of Stock Proctology

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 34,219 posts

Posted 11 June 2004 - 12:30 AM

Nikkei just tanked, following the Kospi and Taiwan downtown....
PigMen Proprietary Trading Desk

The Weimar Run: Bullphoria!!!!

#38

  • Guests
  • 0 posts

Posted 11 June 2004 - 01:56 AM

Butters- don't let EWI mess with your mind Prechter is still a master at Socionomics but Hochberg couldn't hit a Bulls Ass with a banjo if he was sitting on it! ;)

I kept my Theorist Subscription for that reason alone.

#39

  • Guests
  • 0 posts

Posted 11 June 2004 - 06:50 AM

depends -- your little chart is the best news I've seen in two days. Do keep posting. Thanks

#40

  • Guests
  • 0 posts

Posted 11 June 2004 - 06:52 AM

The U.S. State Department is ours...we own it, the Rebublican National Committee does not. It would appear that Henry Waxman has forced the State Department to admit publicly that it had published a bogus report regrading global terrorism (the most important topic imaginable). Since there can be no strategic benefit to you and me, the owners of the State Department, for having put out false information, it seems appropriate to see who claimed strategic benefit for this.


http://www.nytimes.c...ics/11terr.html

U.S. wrongly reported drop in terrorism in 2003


When the report was issued April 29, senior administration officials used it as evidence that the war was being won. J. Cofer Black, coordinator of the State Department's Counterterrorism Office, cited the 190 acts of terrorism in 2003, down from 198 in 2002, as "good news" and predicted the trend would continue. Richard L. Armitage, the deputy secretary of state, said at the time, "You will find in these pages clear evidence that we are prevailing in the fight."

The erroneous report, titled "Patterns of Global Terrorism," said that attacks declined last year to the lowest level in 34 years and dropped 45 percent since 2001, Mr. Bush's first year as president, when 346 attacks occurred.

Among the mistakes, Mr. Boucher said, was that only part of 2003 was taken into account.

Secretary of State Colin L. Powell said Thursday that the errors were partly the result of new procedures for collecting data. "I can assure you it had nothing to do with putting out anything but the most honest, accurate information we can," Mr. Powell said said.

"Errors crept in that, frankly, we did not catch here," he said of the report, which showed a decline in the number of attacks worldwide in 2003.

Representative Henry A. Waxman, Democrat of California, said this week that the administration had refused to address his contention that the findings were manipulated for political purposes. Mr. Waxman wrote to Mr. Powell in May asking for an explanation.

#41

  • Guests
  • 0 posts

Posted 11 June 2004 - 08:00 AM

http://www.nytimes.c...ion/10TEPP.html


This doctrine is the product of an American initiative. Devised by Allied judges and prosecutors at the Nuremberg tribunals, it was a means to impute responsibility for wartime atrocities to Nazi leaders, who often communicated indirectly and avoided leaving a paper trail.

More recently, the principle has been fine-tuned by two other American creations: the international tribunals for Yugoslavia and Rwanda, which were established in the last decade by the United Nations Security Council at the United States' behest. These tribunals have held that political and military leaders can be found liable for war crimes committed by those under their "effective control" if they do nothing to prevent them.

If this is now the standard in international law which the United States and the United Nations are applying to rogue leaders like the former Yugoslavian president, Slobodan Milosevic what does it mean for Washington? The rulings of the Nuremberg and Hague tribunals don't directly bind the United States at home. But given that these institutions were created with the support and approval of the United States, their judgments will be difficult for American officials to disown.

If American officials are not held legally accountable, the damage abroad could be even more severe. Part of the terrible legacy of Abu Ghraib may be that the United States will find it difficult to prosecute foreign war criminals if it refuses to accept for itself the legal standards it accuses them of breaking.

#42 phatbubble

phatbubble

    Associate Professor of Stock Proctology

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,331 posts

Posted 11 June 2004 - 08:04 AM


First, we do not post material from other sites without a link. You MUST identify the source and link to it.

Second.

The reposted material is clearly bullcrap.


Trying to get back at me for criticizing your permitting of the anti-Reagan diatribe a few weeks back, eh (complete with Alzheimers put-downs)? And it was so timely.

My three-year subscription has been cancelled. I'll join Chibear and the others on the alternative site.

yeah, doc hardly ever mentions guidelines for posting, sourcing, copyrights, a 'snippet and a link', etc.....
Quod Severis Metes

Your life is the sum of a remainder of an unbalanced equation inherent to the programming of the Matrix. You are the eventuality of an internal anomaly, which despite my sincerest efforts, I have been unable to eliminate from what is otherwise a harmony of mathematical precision. While it remains a burden assiduously avoided, it is not unexpected, and thus not beyond a measure of control. Which has led you, inexorably, here.
You haven't answered my question.
Quite right. Interesting. That was quicker than the others.

#43

  • Guests
  • 0 posts

Posted 11 June 2004 - 08:06 AM

Bill Moyers: "This is the first time in my 32 years of public broadcasting that (the Corporation for Public Broadcasting) has ordered up programs for ideological instead of journalistic reasons." Strong words.

It gets worse. The most recent Bush appointment to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting board is a former chair of GOPAC, the Gingrich political action committee. Remember the "Contract With America"? Well, get ready for Gingrich aide Gay Hart Gaines' "contract on PBS."

http://fightingbob.c...m?articleID=226

#44 Hiding Bear

Hiding Bear

    Associate Professor of Stock Proctology

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,517 posts

Posted 11 June 2004 - 08:10 AM

Well at least one Congressperson, Waxman, is awake. And while not everyone here may agree with his politics, the government should not put out disinformation on basic matters. I think Secretary of State Colin L. Powell is saying we've been had. This problem seems to be acute in economic statistics. Why do we even need a CPI and PPI without food and energy? Because Greenspan thought of this deceptive trick in the early 80s before he became part of the Fed.

An Economic Legend
By PAUL KRUGMAN

Published: June 11, 2004
Think about it: Mr. Reagan passed his big tax cut right at the beginning of his presidency, and mainly raised taxes thereafter.


http://www.nytimes.c...ion/11KRUG.html

#45 Hiding Bear

Hiding Bear

    Associate Professor of Stock Proctology

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,517 posts

Posted 11 June 2004 - 08:17 AM

Out of Africa:

Violence 'may force Shell to quit Nigeria'
By Michael Peel in Lagos
Published: June 10 2004 20:28 | Last Updated: June 11 2004 1:07

Royal Dutch/Shell, the oil multinational, could be forced to pull out of onshore production in Nigeria by 2008 because of violence in the oil-producing Niger Delta region, according to a confidential report commissioned by the company.

Nigeria is one of Shell's most important countries of operation, accounting for about 10 per cent of worldwide production as well of some of the company's most promising future fields.

Shell did not agree with the authors' conclusions that it would have to withdraw in five years, but admitted conflict in the Delta had "the potential to get worse" if no action were taken. "Government and local communities must take the lead in ending conflict. But we are also determined to help."


http://news.ft.com/s...p=1012571727088





Stock market portfolio giving you the runs? See Dr. Stool.

Take a subscribatory!
Download 
The Anals of Stock Proctology now!



The Daily Stool - Stock Market Message Board
Stool's Gold- Gold and Precious Metals Forum
Look Out Below Message Board

Support your local Stool Board.


The Al E. Greenspeuman designer line at Stoolmart. Get yours today! Click here now!
Get Mugged!


Dr. Stool's
Book Search

Enter title, author, or keyword
Just books
All Products





Old Stool Depository

Live Steaming Pile Chart