Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
c'mon r u 2 chicken to post on all my bds?
i detest vindictive posters who come here seeking revenge
r u and yer butt buddy posting drunk again?
i have 12 bds wanna try for a ban for u and your buddy on all of them?
u have been reported for your antics
i detest vindictive posters who come here seeking revenge
Downtown protesters march against groups 'that wrecked the economy'
Seven Habits of Ineffective Traders
(reposted acct it's a great read)
Friday November 5, 1:03 pm ET
By Ken Wolff, RealMoney.com Contributor
Recently, a couple of people I know packed up and quit trading after struggling for a long time to hold their heads above water. They didn't make it.
This isn't unusual, of course. This profession has a high failure rate. But it frustrated me.
It frustrated me because I could see potential in them. I don't believe you have to be particularly talented or intelligent to be a successful trader, but these people seemed to have a grasp on the market and the love of trading that's necessary.
They had the tools, the knowledge, the time and the funds. It also frustrated me because I could see the pressure they were under that contributed to their failures. Most of all, though, it frustrated me because I could clearly see what they were doing wrong, but they couldn't stop repeating the same mistakes.
This happens a lot. I see a lot of people making the same mistakes. So I thought I'd share my list of the seven most frustrating things that struggling traders do.
1. When people won't do their own homework. Too many people want to make money, but aren't willing to put the time in and do what it takes. I love answering questions, and I have a passion to help people learn, but when I notice someone asking the same questions over and over, and they are basic questions that anyone could Google, and gave it 30 seconds worth of effort, I know that person is lazy and probably won't make it.
You want to know what makes successful traders? People who glue their butts to their chairs. Look at their computer desks and you're likely to see lots of coffee rings and crumbs. You get out of something only what you put into it. If you aren't willing to take notes, take some initiative, keep a journal and spend a lot of time watching stocks, I don't see much hope for you as a trader.
2. When people can't explain their reasoning for a trade. If your reason for entering a trade is something vague like, "I thought I saw buyers, and last week it had news, and I dunno, it just looked good," then you don't belong in that trade! People like this usually have no clearly conceived, written, organized trading strategy because they are lazy. They are doomed to failure.
If you have no solid reason for a trade, you will have no confidence in it. You will wind up mistiming, misjudging, fumbling and losing. Here's a quote from my partner Phil Rosten, who is a brilliant technician:
I think the most important thing to do is to develop a system that you have confidence in. You will get nowhere if you are second-guessing what you are doing. When the market is open, you need to know what you are doing, and why you are doing it, without thinking too much about it. If you start thinking too much about what you are doing or second-guessing yourself, you will quickly get taken out of the game.
Believe it or not, it doesn't matter much what your reason is, as long as you are consistent with that reasoning. But you'd better have a reason.
3. When people make things more complicated than they need to be. Let me give you an example. One of the leaders in my chat room finally unveiled a new trading system he had developed after more than a year of extensive testing. The system works just as it is. It isn't perfect (no trading system will be 100%), but it is highly profitable.
People's initial reactions were interesting. Instead of saying, "Wow, great. Let me give it a try," a common first response was, "I wonder if it would work even better if we changed this and that, and instead of a 15-day moving average we used a 10-day moving average," and on and on. Before they even tried or understood the system, before ever becoming profitable and successful with it, they immediately set about trying to improve it.
Maybe it's human nature. We love trying to reinvent the wheel. Many of us see trading as a puzzle. If we could just find that solution or formula that no one else has thought of yet, we would be rich and happy. A lot of people think that the more indicators they pile on, the better their trading results will be. So they wind up with analysis paralysis, unprofitable and frustrated, convinced that trading is an unwinnable gamble.
I can't say this enough: What matters is not the system itself, but what you do with the system -- your discipline to use it and keep stops. You won't find a system that always works, so you'd better limit those losses. Two percent of your trades can easily wipe out 98% of your gains if you can't keep stops.
4. When people enter a trade for a good reason, then lose their nerve and exit too soon. This is a lot like walking across a log over a river. If you keep focused on your goal, you will get to the other side. You know how to walk a straight line, and you would have no problems if the log was on the ground. But once you are out there, if you start second-guessing yourself and looking down at the rocks below, you will fall. Too often emotions set in and sabotage good trades.
If you have a reason, stick with it. Stay in the trade until your target is reached, you have an exit signal, or the reason for your entry is no longer valid.
5. When people hesitate, or follow others, and enter a trade too late. I understand traders' lack of confidence and I can empathize because I've been there. If they don't get a grip on it, though, it will be their downfall. Calls are great and gurus are great, but if you follow, you will always be late. You need to learn to rely on your own reasoning. Otherwise you will be too slow and you'll become fish bait.
Inexperience is often the reason for this, and that will take care of itself with time. That's why I recommend starting with small shares until you gain confidence in your system and your ability to keep stops. But this problem frequently has to do with deeper emotions, pressures and self-esteem problems that may not go away as easily.
This is hard stuff because it's all about confidence. When you are under pressure from a spouse who disapproves of your trading, or under pressure to pay bills, etc., you are working under an enormous amount of fear and pressure. And that is automatically going to cause hesitation. I know that's a hard situation.
But I tell you, if you don't get that under control and learn to trade like you don't need the money -- with control and a system, leaving out emotion -- you are not going to make it. You must find a way to ease that pressure. Get a part-time job if things are that rough and you still believe trading is the job for you. If you cut back and trade a couple of days a week without the pressure, you'll probably trade better for it and wind up making more money than you did trading five days a week under pressure. I've seen it happen many times.
6. When people will not contemplate the real reasons for their failures. I don't know how many times I have heard this: "The market was tough today. I had one good early trade and then gave it all back in the afternoon in a few bad trades."
Let's be honest here. The market wasn't making you do those stupid later trades. It was you. Don't blame it on the market when in reality you were chasing longs all day when the market was tanking.
Then people will say something like "I need help with risk management," "I need help learning to find good entries," "I need help learning executions" or some other topic not really related to their true mistake. What they need instead is a dose of self-restraint and some personal accountability. They need to stop making trades out of boredom, frustration, regret or any other reason other than "it met my trading criteria." They also need to be honest about these criteria and not stretch things into "well, it kind of meets my criteria -- if I look at it cross-eyed."
I know this is hard. It's tough to sit there all day and stare at these numbers, especially when things are slow and there have been no good trading opportunities that day. It's like fishing. Fishing can be really boring. But if you aren't sitting there waiting with your hook in the water, you won't catch anything when the big fish come by. And it won't help if you jump in the water every time you see a ripple, trying to convince yourself you had a bite.
7. A defeatist attitude, especially in me. The potential in our lives far exceeds what we ordinarily imagine. Too often we put limitations on ourselves with Eeyore-like thinking. We say "I can't do this" or "I am just not smart enough" or "I'm just unlucky." In doing so, we fail to challenge ourselves and develop new potential because we've lost faith in ourselves.
We are like circus elephants tied with small weak chains to a stake, believing we could never get free, unaware of our own strength. We possess tremendous potential, but if we develop the bad habit of convincing ourselves that our potential is limited, we will not actively challenge ourselves and grow. Like the elephant, we will be held captive by our own beliefs.
If you have a defeatist attitude, you've already lost. So let's keep a positive mindset and try to see each mistake as a stepping stone to growth.
20 GOLDEN RULES FOR TRADERS
Want to trade successfully? Just choose the good positions and avoid the bad ones. Poor trade selection takes a heavy toll as it bleeds your confidence and wallet. You face many crossroads during each market day. Without a system of discipline for your decision-making, impulse and emotion will undermine skills as you chase the wrong stocks at the worst times.
Many short-term players view trading as a form of gambling. Without planning or discipline, they throw money at the market. The occasional big score reinforces this easy money attitude but sets them up for ultimate failure. Without defensive rules, insiders easily feed off these losers and send them off to other hobbies.
Technical Analysis teaches traders to execute positions based on numbers, time and volume.This discipline forces traders to distance themselves from reckless gambling behavior. Through detached execution and solid risk management, short-term trading finally "works".
Markets echo similar patterns over and over again. The science of trend allows you to build systematic rules to play these repeating formations and avoid the chase:
1. Forget the news, remember the chart. You're not smart enough to know how news will affect price. The chart already knows the news is coming.
2. Buy the first pullback from a new high. Sell the first pullback from a new low. There's always a crowd that missed the first boat.
3. Buy at support, sell at resistance. Everyone sees the same thing and they're all just waiting to jump in the pool.
4. Short rallies not selloffs. When markets drop, shorts finally turn a profit and get ready to cover.
5. Don't buy up into a major moving average or sell down into one. See #3.
6. Don't chase momentum if you can't find the exit. Assume the market will reverse the minute you get in. If it's a long way to the door, you're in big trouble.
7. Exhaustion gaps get filled. Breakaway and continuation gaps don't. The old traders' wisdom is a lie. Trade in the direction of gap support whenever you can.
8. Trends test the point of last support/resistance. Enter here even if it hurts.
9. Trade with the TICK not against it. Don't be a hero. Go with the money flow.
10. If you have to look, it isn't there. Forget your college degree and trust your instincts.
11. Sell the second high, buy the second low. After sharp pullbacks, the first test of any high or low always runs into resistance. Look for the break on the third or fourth try.
12. The trend is your friend in the last hour. As volume cranks up at 3:00pm don't expect anyone to change the channel.
13. Avoid the open. They see YOU coming sucker
14. 1-2-3-Drop-Up. Look for downtrends to reverse after a top, two lower highs and a double bottom.
15. Bulls live above the 200 day, bears live below. Sellers eat up rallies below this key moving average line and buyers to come to the rescue above it.
16. Price has memory. What did price do the last time it hit a certain level? Chances are it will do it again.
17. Big volume kills moves. Climax blow-offs take both buyers and sellers out of the market and lead to sideways action.
18. Trends never turn on a dime. Reversals build slowly. The first sharp dip always finds buyers and the first sharp rise always finds sellers.
19. Bottoms take longer to form than tops. Fear acts more quickly than greed and causes stocks to drop from their own weight.
20. Beat the crowd in and out the door. You have to take their money before they take yours, period.
ATTN: a word of warning for those who desire to post anything confrontational or that resembles an attack on the board's theme, the post WILL BE DELETED and the poster BANNED, so choose your words wisely!
Now I am disappointed, wake up tea - delete - ban - tia
beyond doom and gloom
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=39097553
claytrader's epaz chart....
whatever captain jim, you block me from responding to your stupid pms and scream of HATE.
please leave me alone, tia!
FORGIVE ME FOR NOW bowing TO YOUR STUPIDIDITY
You obviously think you are better than everyone else and I HATE people like you
Now to answer your DD Question, I guess a filing company is beyond your thought capability so I posted the PR which EXPLAINS in ENGLISH in case your an Illegal IMMIGRANT, the details of the deal
Artfest International, Inc. (OTCBB: ARTI) is pleased to announce that the Company has completed the acquisition of Charity Sports Distribution, Inc. (CSD) for $3,750,000 to be paid in restricted shares of Artfest International's common stock valued at $.25 per share. Artfest International will also assume $500,000 in debt as part of the transaction. The acquisition of CSD was one of the major factors in Artfest International receiving a $5 Million equity line of credit from Delaney Capital, LLC earlier this month.
CSD is in the gift, novelty, collectable and memorabilia business and operates souvenir shops and game day auctions at major stadiums and college sport venues. CSD is headquartered in Carrollton, TX. CSD currently has over 20 employees and had annual sales of over $3.3 million in 2008.
Through this acquisition, Artfest will also receive approximately $1.2 million in sport memorabilia, which will be available for sale on the Company's Web site www.artfestinternational.com, which is just one of the avenues in which CSD will be able to increase its sales figures in 2009.
i post due diligence that is beyond your understanding but not your bluster, captain jim.
good luck!
NEVER do i post d.d. on a stock and tell people via p.m. to stop posting because i am flipping it.
in other words,
i do not need an excuse.
Is that the best you can do ??
I trade stocks, Play the MOMO, not the Hype and make money doing it
What is your excuse ?
imagine a moderator on a dump the pump board with this line up?
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/profile.asp?user=114856
ouch.
definitely one who bought the pump.
double ouch.
Should I post your PM's full of Nasty BS Also ??
and because you fail to see it, it is not there.
not my fault you are an idiot.
nah, i would prefer to let you captain jim, bash arti on their board and THEN tell anyone providing valid dd...
via pm to stfu because you are flipping it.
you are a real piece of work and thanks for the especially touching private messages.
you are a real piece of work.
WOW, what a vendetta !! You are not even a Good Basher !
You post the same CRAP over and Over and I fail to see the Toxic part of this deal. THIS IS not a PINK and everything is filed above board.
Can you PLEASE explain for us so called NEWBIES you knowledge of the TOXIC Terms or can you only spell the word TOXIC ?
arti - nothing but doom and gloom.
On June 24, 2009, Artfest entered into a financing arrangement with Sunny Isles Venture, LLC
Florida Limited Liability Company
SUNNY ISLES VENTURE, LLC,
Filing Information
Document Number L09000045124
FEI/EIN Number NONE
Date Filed 05/08/2009
State FL
Status ACTIVE
Effective Date 05/08/2009
Manager/Member Detail
Name & Address
Title MGRM
KAPLAN, BEN
1800 SOUTH OCEAN DRIVE, PH2
HALLANDALE FL 33009
Ben Kaplan
“Ben Kaplan” has been a Signatory for/with the following 7 Registrants:
Cargo Connection Logistics Holding/Inc [ formerly Cargo Connections ]
Connected Media Technologies/Inc [ formerly Trust Licensing/Inc/F/K/A New Mountaintop CORP ]
Genaissance Pharmaceuticals Inc
Genesis Capital Corp of Nevada
Sunway Global Inc [ formerly National Realty & Mortgage Inc ]
Triple Crown Consulting
Universal Property Development & Acquisition Corp [ formerly Procoregroup Inc ]
http://www.secinfo.com/$/SEC/Name.asp?S=ben+kaplan
.....................
Triple Crown Consulting
Florida corporation records show that one of Kaplan’s relatives, Benjamin Kaplan, is president of Triple Crown Consulting Inc of North Miami Beach, Fla.
Championlyte’s SEC filings in 2003 noted that some officers of Triple Crown also were members of Knightsbridge, but that the two shared no common management.
Florida corporation filings offer no clues about the overlap, listing only one officer or manager for each – Kaplan as president for Triple Crown and Schreiber as managing member of Knightsbridge.
Sharesleuth’s research shows that Triple Crown held shares in seven companies on the list of fraud vehicles in the New Jersey case.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rlz=1T4HPIB_enUS310US310&q=ben+kaplan%2C+triple+crown+consulting&btnG=Search&aq=f&oq=&aqi=
hi bbls, how are you? hoping to be forgiven for something here...
Doom and gloom types full of hype. Market is in a correction and it's prudent to protect your money but the world is not coming to an end. Global economy is strong and US companies are profitting hansomely. US is far more resilient than many give credit, but doomers don't want to speak or hear the truth. Although I take most of what I see with a grain of salt, I see a lot of shameless BS on this board. I've filtered out most of the naysayers but it's getting so bad I can't keep it all out and it's distracting to those read and post good DD. Look at history, we've been through worse cycles than this.
Six Years After 'Gore's Victory'
By Robert Parry
November 12, 2007 (Originally published November 12, 2001)
Editor’s Note: Six years ago on another Veterans Day holiday, eight news organizations published the findings of their unofficial recount of Florida’s disputed ballots. The recount had discovered that Al Gore would have won the decisive Florida election if all legally cast votes were counted.
However, just two months after the 9/11 attacks, the news organizations chose to conceal the obvious “Gore Won” lead, apparently putting their sense of “patriotism” over journalistic professionalism.
Rather than tell already-shaken Americans that the wrong man was in the White House, the big news outlets – including the New York Times, the Washington Post and CNN – structured their stories around hypothetical recounts that would have excluded some legal votes and thus still would have resulted in a Bush “victory.”
To further protect Bush’s “legitimacy” amid the 9/11 crisis, the news organizations mocked those who challenged these carefully structured stories as “Gore partisans” or “conspiracy theorists.”
Even today, some Americans angrily object when they read references we make to Gore’s Florida victory. They remember that day six years ago when the news organizations sold the case for Bush’s legitimacy.
But was it right for the Times, Post, CNN and other major news outlets to obscure their own key finding – that if the will of the Florida voters had been respected, Al Gore would have been America’s President?
While one can sympathize with the thinking – that challenging Bush’s “legitimacy” would have divided the nation and opened the news organizations to angry denunciations by a public which had rallied behind Bush after 9/11 – there is still the professional issue of whether such concerns are appropriate for journalists.
Beyond that question of objectivity, it is also arguable that the pro-Bush slants influenced future political events:
If Big Media had not hidden Bush’s electoral illegitimacy, would Bush’s personality cult have grown so immense? Would Congress and the Washington press corps have fallen so compliantly in line behind his march to war with Iraq in 2002? Might the Democrats have had a better chance to unseat Bush in 2004?
Even just pertaining to the history of Election 2000, Big Media’s decision to bury the “Gore Won” evidence minimized the attention that came later to the discovery that the Florida judge overseeing the recount would likely have included the so-called “over-votes,” when a voter both marked and wrote in a candidate’s name.
Those “over-votes” broke heavily for Gore and would have added enough votes for him to pull ahead of Bush, regardless of which standard of chad was used to count the “under-votes.”
Six years ago, the major U.S. news outlets assumed, incorrectly, that the over-votes would not have been tallied – and have never corrected their stories to reflect this later discovery. [For a full account of the Florida recount fight, see our new book, Neck Deep.]
In recognition of the significance of the Big Media’s mis-reporting of the Florida recount results, we are republishing our story from six years ago:
So Al Gore was the choice of Florida’s voters -- whether one counts hanging chads or dimpled chads. That was the core finding of the eight news organizations that conducted a review of disputed Florida ballots. By any chad measure, Gore won.
Share this article
Bookmark
Digg
Email
Printer friendly
Gore won even if one doesn’t count the 15,000-25,000 votes that USA Today estimated Gore lost because of illegally designed “butterfly ballots,” or the hundreds of predominantly African-American voters who were falsely identified by the state as felons and turned away from the polls. [Some later estimates put this number of disenfranchised blacks well into the thousands.]
Gore won even if there’s no adjustment for George W. Bush’s windfall of about 290 votes from improperly counted military absentee ballots where lax standards were applied to Republican counties and strict standards to Democratic ones, a violation of fairness reported earlier by the Washington Post and the New York Times.
Put differently, George W. Bush was not the choice of Florida’s voters anymore than he was the choice of the American people who cast a half million more ballots for Gore than Bush nationwide. [For more details on studies of the election, see Consortiumnews.com stories of May 12, June 2 and July 16, 2001.]
The Spin
Yet, possibly for reasons of “patriotism” in this time of crisis, the news organizations that financed the Florida ballot study structured their stories on the ballot review to indicate that Bush was the legitimate winner, with headlines such as “Florida Recounts Would Have Favored Bush” [Washington Post, Nov. 12, 2001].
Post media critic Howard Kurtz took the spin one cycle further with a story headlined, “George W. Bush, Now More Than Ever,” in which Kurtz ridiculed as “conspiracy theorists” those who thought Gore had won.
“The conspiracy theorists have been out in force, convinced that the media were covering up the Florida election results to protect President Bush,” Kurtz wrote. “That gets put to rest today, with the finding by eight news organizations that Bush would have beaten Gore under both of the recount plans being considered at the time.”
Kurtz also mocked those who believed that winning an election fairly, based on the will of the voters, was important in a democracy. “Now the question is: How many people still care about the election deadlock that last fall felt like the story of the century – and now faintly echoes like some distant Civil War battle?” he wrote.
In other words, the elite media’s judgment is in: "Bush won, get over it." Only "Gore partisans" – as both the Washington Post and the New York Times called critics of the official Florida election tallies – would insist on looking at the fine print.
The Actual Findings
While that was the tone of coverage in these leading news outlets, it’s still a bit jarring to go outside the articles and read the actual results of the statewide review of 175,010 disputed ballots.
“Full Review Favors Gore,” the Washington Post said in a box on page 10, showing that under all standards applied to the ballots, Gore came out on top. The New York Times' graphic revealed the same outcome.
Earlier, less comprehensive ballot studies by the Miami Herald and USA Today had found that Bush and Gore split the four categories of disputed ballots depending on what standard was applied to assessing the ballots – punched-through chads, hanging chads, etc. Bush won under two standards and Gore under two standards.
The new, fuller study found that Gore won regardless of which standard was applied and even when varying county judgments were factored in. Counting fully punched chads and limited marks on optical ballots, Gore won by 115 votes. With any dimple or optical mark, Gore won by 107 votes. With one corner of a chad detached or any optical mark, Gore won by 60 votes. Applying the standards set by each county, Gore won by 171 votes. …
The news organizations opted for the pro-Bush leads by focusing on two partial recounts that were proposed – but not completed – in the chaotic, often ugly environment of last November and December.
The new articles make much of Gore’s decision to seek recounts in only four counties and the Florida Supreme Court’s decision to examine only “under-votes,” those rejected by voting machines for supposedly lacking a presidential vote. A recurring undercurrent in the articles is that Gore was to blame for his defeat, even if he may have actually won the election.
"Mr. Gore might have eked out a victory if he had pursued in court a course like the one he publicly advocated when he called on the state to 'count all the votes,'" the New York Times wrote, with a clear suggestion that Gore was hypocritical as well as foolish.
The Washington Post recalled that Gore "did at one point call on Bush to join him in asking for a statewide recount" and accepting the results without further legal challenge, but that Bush rejected the proposal as "a public relations gesture."
The Bush Strategy
Instead of supporting a full and fair recount, Bush chose to cling to his official lead of 537 votes out of some six million cast. Bush counted on his brother Jeb’s state officials to ensure the Bush family’s return to national power.
To add some muscle to the legal maneuvering, the Bush campaign dispatched thugs to Florida to intimidate vote counters and jacked up the decibel level in the powerful conservative media, which accused Gore of trying to steal the election and labeled him "Sore Loserman."
With Bush rejecting a full recount and media pundits calling for Gore to concede, Gore opted for recounts in four southern Florida counties where irregularities seemed greatest. Those recounts were opposed by Bush’s supporters, both inside Gov. Jeb Bush’s administration and in the streets by Republican hooligans flown in from Washington. [For more details, see stories from Nov. 24, 2000 and Nov. 27, 2000]
Stymied on that recount front, Gore carried the fight to the state courts, where pro-Bush forces engaged in more delaying tactics, leaving the Florida Supreme Court only days to fashion a recount remedy.
Finally, on Dec. 8, facing an imminent deadline for submitting the presidential election returns, the state Supreme Court ordered a statewide recount of “under-votes.” This tally would have excluded so-called “over-votes” – which were kicked out for supposedly indicating two choices for president.
Bush fought this court-ordered recount, too, sending his lawyers to the U.S. Supreme Court. There, five Republican justices stopped the recount on Dec. 9 and gave a sympathetic hearing to Bush’s claim that the varying ballot standards in Florida violated constitutional equal-protection requirements.
At 10 p.m. on Dec. 12, two hours before a deadline to submit voting results, the Republican-controlled U.S. Supreme Court instructed the state courts to devise a recount method that would apply equal standards, a move that would have included all ballots where the intent of the voter was clear.
The hitch was that the U.S. Supreme Court gave the state only two hours to complete this assignment, effectively handing Florida’s 25 electoral votes and the White House to Republican George W. Bush.
A Third Hypothetical
The articles about the new recount tallies make much of the two hypothetical cases in which Bush supposedly would have prevailed: the limited recounts of the four southern Florida counties – by 225 votes – and the state Supreme Court’s order – by 430 votes. Those hypothetical cases dominated the news stories, while Gore’s statewide-recount victory was played down.
Yet, the newspapers made little or nothing of the fact that the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision represented a third hypothetical. Assuming that a brief extension were granted to permit a full-and-fair Florida recount, the U.S. Supreme Court decision might well have resulted in the same result that the news organizations discovered: a Gore victory.
The U.S. Supreme Court’s proposed standards mirrored the standards applied in the new recount of the disputed ballots. The Post buries this important fact in the 22nd paragraph of its story.
“Ironically, it was Bush’s lawyers who argued that recounting only the under-votes violated the constitutional guarantee of equal protection. And the U.S. Supreme Court, in its Dec. 12 ruling that ended the dispute, also questioned whether the Florida court should have limited a statewide recount only to under-votes,” the Post wrote. “Had the high court acted on that, and had there been enough time left for the Florida Supreme Court to require yet another statewide recount, Gore’s chances would have been dramatically improved.”
In other words, if the U.S. Supreme Court had given the state enough time to fashion a comprehensive remedy or if Bush had agreed to a full-and-fair recount earlier, the popular will of the American voters – both nationally and in Florida – might well have been respected. Al Gore might well have been inaugurated president of the United States.
Favored Outcome
But this outcome was not the favored hypothetical of the news organizations, which apparently wanted to avoid questions about their patriotism. If they had simply given the American people the unvarnished facts, the reality that the voters of Florida favored Al Gore might have bolstered the belief that Bush indeed did steal the White House. That, in turn, could have undermined his legitimacy during the current crisis over terrorism.
In its coverage of the latest recount numbers, the national news media also showed little regard for the fundamental principle of democracy: that leaders derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, not from legalistic tricks, physical intimidation and public-relations maneuvers.
It is that understanding that is most missing in the news accounts of the latest recount figures.
Presumably, the American people are supposed to accept that everything just turned out right – the Bush dynasty was restored to power, the proper order was back in place. Anyone who begs to differ is a “conspiracy theorist” or a “Gore partisan.”
[For more about how the “Bush Won” stories were spun, see our new book, Neck Deep: The Disastrous Presidency of George W. Bush.]
Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the Associated Press and Newsweek. His latest book, Neck Deep: The Disastrous Presidency of George W. Bush, was written with two of his sons, Sam and Nat, and can be ordered at neckdeepbook.com. His two previous books, Secrecy & Privilege: The Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq and Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & 'Project Truth' are also available there. Or go to Amazon.com.
You want doom & gloom?
intended to feed on human emotions and despair
Up to 40 percent of the $1.2 trillion in subprime mortgage loans could reach default costing banks as much as $400 billion by the time the credit crisis subsides...
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/071113/foreclosures_spillover.html
Bad mortgage debt may cost banks as much as $400 billion by the time the credit crisis subsides, Deutsche Bank wrote in a research report Monday, estimating that among the $1.2 trillion in subprime mortgage loans outstanding, up to 40 percent could reach default, forcing losses of $150 billion to $250 billion.
The number of U.S. homes in foreclosure more than doubled in the third quarter, Irvine, Calif. based RealtyTrac Inc. said earlier this month. A total of 446,726 homes nationwide were affected by some sort of foreclosure activity from July to September, nearly doubling from 223,233 properties in the year-ago period.
How many banks will go belly up on subprime defaults alone??
Enough gloom and doom economic and political prognostications in this blog of mine, at least for a day or two
The secret to success is knowing who to blame for your failures
We can’t figure it out. Is the Chronicle reporting locally, or nationally when they’re trying to scare us into thinking all is lost in real estate?
Here’s the Headline: “Study expects 1.1 million foreclosures, Those with adjustable mortgages are most likely losers, even with conventional loans.”
More doom and gloom, but is it the best way to think?
the Arabic media is mired in gloom and despair, certain that soon their countries will be a battlefield
You want doom and gloom?
The Official "Worst President Ever"
Thanks. Down with communism?
fantastic pic of dim son in your siggy :))
by discussing what we consider to be the dire straits that our nation now finds itself in, “Doom and gloom” notwithstanding
After all the doom and gloom that is written in our local newspapers, it's a wonder that anyone is even buying or selling a house.
do you heed every message of doom and gloom, avoiding risks
Followers
|
3
|
Posters
|
|
Posts (Today)
|
0
|
Posts (Total)
|
148
|
Created
|
11/12/07
|
Type
|
Premium
|
Moderator teapeebubbles | |||
Assistants |
Volume | |
Day Range: | |
Bid Price | |
Ask Price | |
Last Trade Time: |