is filling out his status report.
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.
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.
im a survivor: ah, that's not what I said. Ironic and paradoxical are not interchangeable here. I think most would conclude that I'm a peaceful poster, here on IHub. So understand that I was trying to get you to see that you are not helping your own cause.
Why don't you bake some cyber doughnuts and send them to Matt in a PM and CALMLY state your desire, in ,say, 50 words or less?
spintex: when one goes in with a trade mentality, then severe DD is not an issue. Still, one needs to know the share structure. If one gets a speedy reply from the transfer agent, fine, but the latest SEC filings should suffice for trading. The accumulation/distribution chart is quite helpful, along with Williams% and Bollinger Bands. One does not need to analyze them in great depth, but certainly use them as a check off. Also, be up on the news.
Start off with ten or less stocks on a watch list and/or streamer. The others can go on a minor league watch system. As a trader, one wants movement. Forget trying to hit bottoms; let them happen by default.
One on the watch list just had a string of buys with the bid and ask going up: that's decision time. It's quite common to increase one's portfolio value 5-20% intraday on a play like that, IF one will take the profits ruthlessly. No one has ever lost money from a winning trade. Compare this thinking to a baseball team that seldom hits home runs, but scratches out a lot of walks and singles and even some doubles. They will win a lot of games.
If a trade goes against the plan, be ready to cut any potential losses. By cutting losses quickly, one will find that a good single will still cover five quick cuts. With experience the percentages get better. Yet, those early good habits will serve for many years.
For trades that one might look to hold for more than a week, then an exit point is in order. As these type of trades go up in share price start putting in stops, even if only mental.
im a survivor: one can either be part of the problem or part of the solution. It's quite paradoxical that you would fulfill the very thing that you are complaining about. Take two chill pills and post me in the morning.
grubmaster: then how come pictures don't scream?
OT- While this post may or may not be considered off topic, it should demonstrate IHub's OT feature. You're welcome, in advance.
Wayne R: so would I be in trouble for using the term: hoi polloi?
bartermania: a fine example of how the Second Amendment protects The First.
Someone emailed me that I wasn't far off from Edward Abbey.
"When a dog howls at the moon, we call it religion. When he barks at strangers, we call it patriotism."
"I know my own nation best. That's why I despise it the most. And know and love my own people, too, the swine. I'm a patriot. A dangerous man."
"A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government."
"A patriot is one who is willing to fight all opponents of freedom of his nation/country. This includes enemy belligerents, petty bureaucrats, and the highest levels of government" (eaglesurvivor)
The Patriot Act
http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html
"The fight to defend the freedoms of my nation are more severe now with pen and ink and keyboard than they were when I served in The U.S. Army and was armed with howitzers and M-60s and M-16s. Furthermore, the risk of death and injury is even greater." (eaglesurvivor)
capgain81: beatniks predated The Beatles and hippies and weren't renowned for long hair. Furthermore, they were pop philosophers and essentially peaceniks.
dreaminofsailin: my primary account is with Scottrade. They drove me nuts setting up the account; being rather disorganized. However, ever since, they are simply the best.
Susie924: not to worry; it's probably the name of his pet hamster.
Vexari: no doubt, however, I was quipping based on the simple principle that you first enumerated:
"Over the last several years I have evolved and discarded several theories in an attempt to explain why it is that most people cannot see truth .. even when it smacks them in the face.."
Yes, your application was foremost, as headlined, to slavery vs freedom. I said what I did because spiritual slavery and political slavery seem to have the same symptoms.
Vexari: it is simpler than that. People do not seek truth and/or love truth, because their very own deeds are evil, no matter how much they console themselves that they never hurt anyone.
lioness: pinks and grays are not the best stocks to start off trading in. They are for fairly experienced traders. There should be a set routine that you go through for any stock, even if your only trading it for less than a day. It never hurts to know the insider roll call and for pennies one should look at the share structure and the accumulation/distribution chart.
Politically, things connected with Dubai are a bit of a hot potato; with the port deal, etal.
Happy Napoleon's Birthday everyone! Click here for quotes by him. http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=12672354
"Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.
Medicine is a collection of uncertain prescriptions the results of which, taken collectively, are more fatal than useful to mankind.
History is the version of past events that people
have decided to agree upon.
A man will fight harder for his interests than for his rights.
If you wish to be a success in the world,
promise everything, deliver nothing."
(Napoleon Bonaparte)
Happy Birthday
A helpful link from my favorite seed company. http://www.reimerseeds.com/PlantingInstructions.aspx
Bell Industries Reports 2006 Second Quarter Results
MONDAY, AUGUST 14, 2006 4:15 PM
EL SEGUNDO, Calif., Aug 14, 2006 (PRIMEZONE via COMTEX) -- Bell Industries, Inc. (BI) today reported financial results for the three and six-month periods ended June 30, 2006.
For the 2006 second quarter, revenues from continuing operations amounted to $31.2 million, compared with $35.3 million in the prior-year period. Net income totaled $5.2 million, or $0.61 per diluted share, including a pre-tax gain on the sale of the company's J.W. Miller division of $6.1 million, or $5.2 million net of tax. This compares with net income of $948,000, or $0.11 per diluted share, in the year-ago second quarter.
"We have made significant progress with our strategy to concentrate on core business operations and align resources to position the company to become leaders in the key markets we serve," said John A. Fellows, chief executive officer of Bell Industries. "Reflecting our dedication to these efforts, subsequent to the close of the second quarter, we announced that Bell's Technology Solutions division received a number of new services contracts. Though we will incur start-up costs for the next few months, we expect these new service relationships to generate approximately $30 million in revenues with favorable margins in 2007.
"With the sharpened focus and recent operational enhancements to our largest operating division, we are confident that Bell's Technology Solutions business is well positioned to emerge as a leading technology, product and services provider in the years ahead," Fellows said.
2006 second quarter revenues for Bell's Technology Solutions business were $16.7 million, compared with $21.4 million in the prior-year period. Product sales amounted to $9.8 million, compared with $13.9 million in the 2005 second quarter. Services revenues totaled $6.9 million in the current second quarter, compared with $7.5 million a year earlier. The division sustained an operating loss of $914,000 in the current second quarter, compared with operating income of $307,000 in the 2005 comparable period.
At Bell's Recreational Products Group (RPG), net revenues for the 2006 second quarter benefited from strong marine sales and rose to $14.5 million, from $13.9 million in the year-ago period. Operating income increased to $922,000 for the 2006 second quarter from $834,000 a year earlier.
Corporate costs for the 2006 second quarter include approximately $160,000 in stock-based compensation expense, for stock options granted during this period, in accordance with the Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 123 (revised 2004).
Revenues from continuing operations for the first half of 2006 were $56.1 million, compared with $62.1 million in the comparable 2005 period. Including the sale of its J.W. Miller division, net income for the 2006 year-to-date period rose to $3.9 million, or $0.45 per diluted share, from $271,000, or $0.03 per diluted share, in the 2005 six-month period.
Bell continues to maintain a strong balance sheet, strengthened further by the J.W. Miller sale, and with no bank debt. At June 30, 2006, cash and cash equivalents totaled $14.5 million, and net working capital rose to $23.6 million. At the end of the 2006 second quarter, shareholders' equity rose to $24.4 million, or $2.85 per share.
About Bell Industries, Inc.
Bell is comprised of two diversified business units, Bell's Technology Solutions business and Recreational Products Group. Bell's Technology Solutions business offers a comprehensive portfolio of technology products and managed lifecycle services, including planning, product sourcing, deployment and disposal, and support services. Bell's Recreational Products Group distributes after-market parts and accessories primarily to the recreational vehicle and boating markets.
Forward-Looking Statements
This press release contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of the "safe harbor" provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. These statements, including, but not limited to the new engagements adding approximately $30 million in incremental revenues with favorable margins during 2007, are based upon our current expectations and speak only as of the date hereof. Our actual results may differ materially and adversely from those expressed in any forward-looking statements as a result of various factors and uncertainties, including uncertainties as to the nature of our industry, including changing customer demand, the impact of competitive products and pricing, dependence on existing management and general economic conditions. Our Annual Report on Form 10-K, recent and forthcoming Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, recent Current Reports on Form 8-K, and other SEC filings discuss some of the important risk factors that may affect our business, results of operations and financial condition. We undertake no obligation to revise or update publicly any forward-looking statements for any reason.
Bell Industries, Inc.
Consolidated Operating Results
(In thousands, except per share data)
(Unaudited)
Three months ended Six months ended
June 30 June 30
2006 2005 2006 2005
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Net revenues
Products $24,302 $27,815 $41,395 $47,434
Services 6,859 7,462 14,729 14,666
------- ------- ------- -------
31,161 35,277 56,124 62,100
------- ------- ------- -------
Costs and expenses
Cost of products sold 19,466 22,276 33,156 38,168
Cost of services provided 5,220 5,835 11,877 11,847
Selling and administrative 7,481 6,734 14,015 12,792
Interest, net (134) (36) (209) (88)
------- ------- ------- -------
32,033 34,809 58,839 62,719
------- ------- ------- -------
Income (loss) from continuing
operations before income tax (872) 468 (2,715) (619)
Income tax expense (benefit) (892) 30 (877) 45
------- ------- ------- -------
Income (loss) from continuing
operations 20 438 (1,838) (664)
Income from discontinued
operations, net of tax 39 510 577 935
Gain on sale of discontinued
operations, net of tax 5,153 -- 5,153 --
------- ------- ------- -------
Net income $ 5,212 $ 948 $ 3,892 $ 271
======= ======= ======= =======
Basic and diluted share data
Income (loss) from continuing
operations
Basic $ -- $ .05 $ (.22) $ (.08)
======= ======= ======= =======
Diluted $ -- $ .05 $ (.22) $ (.08)
======= ======= ======= =======
Net income
Basic $ .61 $ .11 $ .45 $ .03
======= ======= ======= =======
Diluted $ .61 $ .11 $ .45 $ .03
======= ======= ======= =======
Weighted average common stock
Basic 8,565 8,460 8,564 8,457
======= ======= ======= =======
Diluted 8,593 8,493 8,590 8,513
======= ======= ======= =======
---------------------------------------------------------------------
OPERATING RESULTS BY BUSINESS SEGMENT
Net revenues
Technology Solutions
Products $ 9,803 $13,895 $16,239 $22,123
Services 6,859 7,462 14,729 14,666
------- ------- ------- -------
16,662 21,357 30,968 36,789
Recreational Products 14,499 13,920 25,156 25,311
------- ------- ------- -------
$31,161 $35,277 $56,124 $62,100
======= ======= ======= =======
Operating income (loss)
Technology Solutions $ (914) $ 307 $(2,158) $ (460)
Recreational Products 922 834 1,112 1,052
Corporate costs (1,014) (709) (1,878) (1,299)
------- ------- ------- -------
(1,006) 432 (2,924) (707)
Interest, net 134 36 209 88
Income tax benefit (expense) 892 (30) 877 (45)
------- ------- ------- -------
Income (loss) from
continuing operations $ 20 $ 438 $(1,838) $ (664)
======= ======= ======= =======
Bell Industries, Inc.
Consolidated Condensed Balance Sheet
(In thousands)
(Unaudited)
June 30, December 31,
2006 2005
---------------------------------------------------------------------
ASSETS
Current assets:
Cash and cash equivalents $14,455 $ 7,331
Accounts receivable 15,645 15,306
Inventories 10,079 12,764
Prepaid expenses and other 2,906 2,701
------- -------
Total current assets 43,085 38,102
------- -------
Fixed assets, net 2,313 3,143
Other assets 2,557 3,108
------- -------
$47,955 $44,353
======= =======
LIABILITIES AND SHAREHOLDERS' EQUITY
Current liabilities:
Floor plan payables $ 57 $ 68
Accounts payable 11,624 11,023
Accrued payroll and liabilities 7,854 8,440
------- -------
Total current liabilities 19,535 19,531
------- -------
Long-term liabilities 4,041 4,518
Shareholders' equity 24,379 20,304
------- -------
$47,955 $44,353
======= =======
SOURCE: Bell Industries, Inc.
Bell Industries, Inc
John A. Fellows/Mitchell I. Rosen
(310) 563-2355
PondelWilkinson Inc.
Roger S. Pondel/Angie H. Yang
(310) 279-5980
MrBankRoll: nope, I wasn't offended, as I do not rapidly jump to conclusions about folk's beliefs, unless they give me severe clues. I just don't go along with a lot of things and am not shy about expressing why. The American culture is literally overwhelmed with paganish words and ideas. America is not derived from Amerigo Vespucci, as was on a map by Martin Waldseemüller in 1507, based on letters from Vespucci. Here's a resource that is quite helpful. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quetzalcoatl
Xmas is far more dangerous, as it encourages lying to children and fosters a substitute god. So much for honoring Jesus the Christ with a sun worship holiday. Look at the names of our days of the week and the names of our months and words like: fortunate. I hope I haven't made you afraid to type.
jwperk: LOL, I know; I posted it since I had some acquaintances that put seeds in the stuffing.
Phil: they can certainly be a problem for folks that haven't taken necessary precautions, such as crop rotation. However, the plants, in discussion, root very quickly with some moist soil placed up near and around the cut. Also at the very time of the cut, one should view if any larvae are present and simply remove them. Also many small gardeners simply interplant pumpkin with corn. Seems to work quite well.
Vine borers are far more prevalent with use of insecticides.
MrBankRoll: I do not subscribe to the gruesome Druid practice; you can study that on your own. There is a literal cornucorpia of varieties (species and subspecies) of pumpkins. Pumpkins, probably more than any other gourd, require proper agronomic practices. They are quite susceptible to range of blights and other fungi. If one is only looking for a few in number, raised beds will often prove their value. Depending on your zone, you have roughly five secure weeks of growing left. For what you want, you might as well clip the empty vines.
As to zucchini, I personally favor them rather small, since I enjoy them raw or lightly sauted. For you stuffing fans, remember the seeds can be a bit tough. By quickly picking the small fruits, a bounty of new flowers appear.
Disclaimer, up front: I don't endorse this article and would certainly debate a number of points. Nevertheless, I feel that it is in line with what this thread is attempting to make folks aware of.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/08/the_death_of_doha.html
Beware the Nano Lawyers
By Jack Uldrich
August 8, 2006
Through 2005, the number of nanotechnology patents issued increased to a total of almost 5,000 -- up from 1,300 just five years earlier. Surprisingly, the number of nanotechnology-related lawsuits did not keep pace. Three recent events, however, suggest that the dam might be about to burst. If they're not careful, investors could get caught in the deluge.
There's a simple explanation for why nanotech's lawsuit-free days are coming to an end: The technology is now making companies real money. From a business perspective, it now makes sense for the holders of certain nanotech patents to send in their army of lawyers, because they might be able to encourage would-be competitors to either agree to potentially lucrative licensing agreements or, alternatively, force them out of a promising market.
Big markets at stake
Last week, I wrote about NVE's (Nasdaq: NVEC) recent price run-up, suggesting that it could be attributed to the company's technology being employed in a new hearing-aid device. While this explanation still holds water, an equally plausible explanation could be found in recent comments made by NVE's CEO, Dan Baker, who suggested in a recent press conference that he felt that Freescale Semiconductor's (Nasdaq: FSL) new MRAM device had "come within the scope of claims in a number of NVE's patents." (MRAM is similar to flash memory, but it holds on to its data even when the device is off. MRAM's advent suggests that "always on" computers are a distinct possibility in the not-so-distant future.)
For NVE, it only makes economic sense to contemplate a lawsuit because the market for MRAM has been estimated to be as high as $50 billion. Even a small slice of such a sizeable market could result in a big payoff for NVE and its investors.
A similar story is now playing out between Elan (NYSE: ELN) and Abraxis Biosciences (Nasdaq: ABBI) over a proprietary nanoparticle technology that has led to $134 million in sales of Abraxane, Abraxis' breast-cancer treatment.
The tip of the iceberg...
Elan's lawsuit and NVE's potential lawsuit are only the tip of the proverbial iceberg. Last Friday, Tokyo-based NEC, whose researcher Sumio Iijima discovered carbon nanotubes back in 1991, announced that it had come to terms on a patenting licensing agreement with SouthWest Nanotechnologies, a private manufacturer of carbon nanotubes.
The deal makes good on NEC's announcement in 2005 that it would aggressively enforce its carbon nanotube patents. This is important, because scores of companies, including IBM (NYSE: IBM), have also filed patents on carbon nanotubes -- and these patents cover everything from single-walled and multiwalled nanotubes to using carbon nanotubes as drug-delivery devices.
Sorting out these competing patents claims will be no easy task, because of two related factors: overlapping and overly broad patents.
Both problems have been exacerbated by a serious shortage of patent examiners trained in the nanosciences at the United States Patent and Trade Office (USPTO). In essence, because of the field's complexity, patents covering the same space have been issued. This lack of knowledge has also caused patent examiners to issue overly broad patents. In one of the more egregious examples, IBM was awarded a patent for single-walled nanotubes, which "Big Blue" defined as "a hollow carbon fiber having a wall consisting of a single layer of carbon atoms."
To the untrained eye, the definition might seem descriptive, but to an army of highly paid, well-trained lawyers, the definition is so vague that they and their law firms can drive a cash-filled armored car around, over, and through it.
... and the ships in its path
Because carbon nanotubes are a core material for nanotechnology and they have a bevy of applications, these overlapping and ill-defined patents could snare a number of companies -- and their investors -- in numerous costly lawsuits.
For instance, IBM is well down the road in employing carbon nanotubes in next-generation transistors. Motorola (NYSE: MOT) is employing carbon nanotubes to construct flat-panel displays. Plug Power is experimenting with them to improve the effectiveness of fuel-cell membranes, and DuPont and others intend to use them in a variety of coatings. Carbon nanotubes are so useful, in fact, that they're being used for applications as broad as water desalination, bike frames, and NASA space craft.
The problem, however, transcends these nanotubes. Invitrogen (Nasdaq: IVTN) is using quantum dots for diagnostic applications, BASF (NYSE: BF) is utilizing new nanomaterials, and SurroMed is experimenting with nanoparticles as imaging agents. A number of other patents have also been filed in the areas of dendrimers, fullerenes, aerogels, and nanowires. (Don't worry, there won't be a quiz on this.)
As soon as any of these applications begin making money, some company will inevitably claim that its intellectual property has been infringed. These claims may or may not be valid, but because the stakes will be so high, there is often little downside to the filer of the lawsuit.
This unfortunate reality will only grow more pronounced in the years ahead. In addition to the money at stake, according to leading nanotechnology research firm Lux Research, there is a growing bottleneck of nanotechnology patents pending at the USPTO. It now takes nearly four years between the average filing and issuance of a nanotech patent. As these patents work their way out of the system, more lawsuits are likely.
What should individual investors do?
First, investors must recognize that the legal playing field is not equal. Smaller companies such as NVE may be at a competitive disadvantage against their larger competitors. They often lack the financial resources and the time to compete against bigger firms' deep pockets. The larger companies, because of their diversity, can easily survive as the lawsuits drag out for years. Smaller companies may find their resources dwindling far more quickly.
One potential strategy is for smaller companies to partner with larger companies, as Dendritic Nanotechnologies has with Dow Chemical (NYSE: DOW) in the field of dendrimers.
I'd also encourage investors to consider the strength of a company's intellectual property (IP) portfolio. This can be a time-consuming task, but investors can make some educated guesses. For instance, because of its resources and its rich history, IBM's IP portfolio should be relatively strong.
Similarly, it's worth considering which companies are making strategic moves to bolster their IP positions. Last year, Invitrogen acquired Quantum Dot Corporation and all of its IP; while Arrowhead Research (Nasdaq: ARWR) has publicly stated that a large part of its business plan is to acquire the most promising IP coming out of universities around the country.
Be careful out there
Lawsuits are a reality, and sometimes bad lawsuits hurt good people. The field of nanotechnology will begin experiencing increasing numbers of players, and the best thing you can do is keep your eyes open to the possibility of costly legal wrangling -- and stay away from smaller companies hanging out in overcrowded neighborhoods where the big boys are playing.
Fool contributor Jack Uldrich is the author of two books on nanotechnology, including Investing in Nanotechnology: Think Small, Win Big. He owns stock in Elan, Freescale, and IBM. Dow Chemical is a Motley Fool Income Investor pick. The Fool has a disclosure policy.
http://www.fool.com/news/commentary/2006/commentary06080817.htm
Middle East Last Updated: Aug 8th, 2006 - 13:07:36
Escalating War
by William F. Jasper
August 21, 2006
The dilemma of false alternatives — and why Americans must not let our government entangle us further in the current Mideast mess.
"We are in the early stages of what I would describe as the third world war, and frankly, our bureaucracies aren't responding fast enough," Newt Gingrich declared. "We don't have the right attitude about this.... This is, in fact, World War III." That alarming statement, laden with overtones of approaching Armageddon, came on NBC's Meet the Press with Tim Russert on Sunday, July 16, as Gingrich put the current Lebanon crisis in context by running through a list of terror attacks worldwide.
Mr. Gingrich, the former Speaker of the House of Representatives and neo-conservative guru, subsequently took up the same theme on CNN's Larry King Live, Fox's Hannity and Colmes, and other programs. But he wasn't merely expressing his opinion that events on the ground have already, de facto, put us squarely in the opening throes of WWIII. No, he was arguing for kicking the process up another notch, pressing for Israel — with U.S. backing — to attack Syria and Iran, the state sponsors of the Hezbollah and Hamas terrorists who have been attacking Israel.
Agitating for the Apocalypse
Gingrich is not the only influential policy wonk to be casting the Lebanon flare-up in apocalyptic terms and rattling the sabers. James Woolsey, a former under secretary of the Navy and President Clinton's CIA director from 1993 to 1995, is even more hawkish, advocating that the United States itself bomb Syria, rather than wait for Israel to do so. "I think we ought to execute some airstrikes against Syria," Woolsey said on Fox News Channel's The Big Story with John Gibson. If we're going to go after Syria, why not also "hit something in Iran?" Gibson asked. Woolsey is not averse to that course of action, but acknowledges that we may be too overextended militarily, at present, to take on another war. "One has to take things to some degree by steps," Woolsey replied, noting that with our troops already committed in one major war in Iraq, a full-tilt war against the Tehran regime may not be practical "at this moment."
Other war hawks, apparently, are unburdened by these concerns. William Kristol, editor of the Weekly Standard and a leading cheerleader for a global war against Islam, is calling for a U.S. military effort to bring about "regime change in Syria and Iran." In a July 24 editorial entitled, "It's Our War," Kristol advocates that we launch "a military strike against Iranian nuclear facilities." Now! "Why wait?" he asks.
Likewise, neo-con propagandist Michael Ledeen, another leading voice in perennial pro-war punditry, sees the Lebanon situation as a mandate for a U.S. military attack on Syria and Iran. In a July 13 National Review Online piece entitled "The Same War," for instance, Ledeen argues: "In this war, there is no meaningful distinction between Iran and Syria, they work in tandem." He insists, "The only way we are going to win this war is to bring down those regimes in Tehran and Damascus." And, he continues, "Only the United States can accomplish it."
Defiance Facade
Opposed to (or rather, seemingly opposed to) these and other voices of the war chorus are the accommodationists, all of whom seem to be pretty much in general agreement that the solution to the Israel-Lebanon-Hamas-Hezbollah-Syria-Iran crisis must be an international one, involving a parley among all of the above-mentioned parties plus the United States, the UN, the EU, Russia, and China. These advocates propose an international peace force for the Israel-Palestine-Lebanon region — most likely under the United Nations and/or NATO auspices — along with generous largesse (from guess who) for humanitarian aid, refugee resettlement, rebuilding of infrastructure destroyed in the recent conflict, etc.
This is the school of thought expounded by, for example, Judith Kipper, adviser for Middle East Programs at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), who urges the Bush administration to "do some meaningful diplomacy" with the terrorists and their state sponsors. In a July 22 New York Times op-ed entitled, "Don't Just Talk to States," Kipper happily reports that "Hamas and Hezbollah, supported by Iran and Syria, have opened a new diplomatic front for the United States." President Bush, she says, "should undertake a robust diplomatic initiative that, directly or through third parties, engages not only states, including even Iran and Syria, but also non-state parties to the conflict, especially Hezbollah and Hamas."
Why negotiate with these murderous thugs? Because, Kipper avers, "both are political parties and social welfare organizations." But she admits that both Hamas and Hezbollah have "lethal military wings" that must be disbanded. However, she is hopeful that this can be accomplished if we agree to "rebuild Lebanon physically and politically" and to "revive the detailed peace plan" known as the Oslo Accords and its follow-up agreements over the past decade and a half. (Ka-ching, ka-ching. No dollar amount is being mentioned now, but rest assured, it would be in the tens of billions, paid mostly by ... guess who?)
Zbigniew Brzezinski, the former national security adviser to President Carter, was proposing a similar approach to Iran several months before the latest ignition of the Israel-Lebanon border wars. Back in April, Brzezinski penned a piece for the Los Angeles Times opining that the "United States should join Britain, France and Germany, as well as perhaps Russia and China (both veto-casting U.N. Security Council members), in direct negotiations with Iran, using the model of the concurrent multilateral talks with North Korea. As it does with North Korea, the U.S. also should simultaneously engage in bilateral talks with Iran about security and financial issues of mutual concern."
To continue with this article, please go to: http://www.thenewamerican.com/artman/publish/article_4122.shtml
(This is via the desire of the publisher, thanks.)
A lot of stuff and much of it: thought provoking.
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/AnsQJones1.pdf
An oldie but goodie (goldie):
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=9740386
The greatest problem of stock specific boards for gathering truth is a factor of groupthink. Robert B. Cialdini pointed out five key factors of influence. One of them is "liking." People like people that are like them and do things like them. They don't like mavericks. Then people want to be liked by others. Now, this may be obvious, but it is rooted by unsuccessful people NOT being able to deal with criticism. Hey, no one likes to be criticized. However, the way that successful folks deal with it is on the other end of the spectrum of the losers.
Thus, the saying: don't confuse me with the truth. Jesus said that people hate the truth because their own deeds are evil.
Therefore, to step out and post truth, different than the accepted board groupthink, will automatically result in being the recipient of hate posts.
bartermania: here's what he got:
Aaron Russo's 'America: Freedom to Fascism' Opens To Sold Out Theaters
Film Grossed approximately $90,000 This Past Week In Test Markets
LOS ANGELES - It was a rush to the box office last week as Aaron Russo's hot documentary "America: Freedom to Fascism" opened in test markets in New York, Chicago, Austin, Tampa and Kansas City. The estimated box office last week was approximately $90,000.
Russo used the test markets to evaluate audience response before spreading it across the country. The film was met with standing ovations and excellent exit polls. Russo feels that the prints could be technically improved, so he has made a decision to pull the film from theaters as of last night (Thursday). He will be upgrading the quality of the prints and releasing the film this September in time for the political season. The film will be released in many theaters across the country.
In Austin, TX the Friday evening show sold out by mid-morning. Chicago's Landmark Century Centre sold out their Saturday evening show so quickly, they had to move it to a larger room.
"I am gratified by the consistent standing ovations that the film is getting throughout America. The exit ratings have been incredibly high," said Russo. "The people of America are eager to learn the truth about how our government functions. It is time for the American people to understand that the Supreme Court has consistently ruled that the 16th Amendment did not give the government the authority to impose a direct unapportioned tax on the labor of the people. The IRS Code does not trump Supreme Court decisions. The Supreme Court has defined income, and it is neither wages nor labor."
The film, which has strong appeal to niche markets, has received phenomenal support from the grassroots and online community.
From a friend that I got to check into the film. He's awaiting a friend of his, in Tampa, Florida, whom he urged to see the movie. My friend is on AR's email list. He got the info from an email today. He has 100% credibility with me.
bartermania: Russo's going to revamp Freedom to Fascism and rerelease in September.
Well, insiders are still nibbling. That's not bad.
Vexari: that's because they're too busy suggesting that you need a tin foil cap. Hmmm, my response to tyranny is to fight it; theirs?
Rockefeller was Chase Manhattan's president and co-CEO, along with George Champion, during the November 1967 "division of the spoils" conference in Geneva. In his 500-page Memoirs, just published in 2002, "Indonesia" does not even appear in the index, and the only hint we get of Chase Manhattan's involvement is his brief remark on page 204 that Chase established a branch in Jakarta in the late '60s.
David Rockefeller became full CEO of Chase Manhattan Bank in early 1969 and, as his memoir recounts, he became a leading figure in (if not the originator of) Nixon's policy of engagement with the Soviet Union and Red China. Rockefeller writes,
President Nixon regarded broadening commercial intercourse with the Soviet Union an integral element in his policy of détente. The Soviet leadership, hungry for access to the modern technology and capital resources of the West, were eager to oblige, and the framework for a trade treaty was incorporated in the agreements signed at the 1972 Moscow Summit that inaugurated a "new era in Soviet-American relations." As part of the "new era," a Soviet-American Commission was created to work out the details that would lead to most-favored nation (MFN) status for the Soviets.
In 1973 Rockefeller opened up a Chase branch in Moscow, and Chase also became the first American bank to sign an agreement with Red China during Rockefeller's visit there the same year as well. His bank would help to openly prop up International Communism for the next decade and a half. For further information on the Establishment's long-standing support for Russia and China see The Best Enemy Money Can Buy, by Antony Sutton.
Vexari: you mean the ABTT networks (Anything But The Truth)?
e e bass: here's the place: http://www.investorshub.com/boards/board.asp?board_id=5850 or you can look up my profile and email me.
Maybe ... just maybe, this will explain some problems.
"By: demagoguery_dogma
01 Aug 2006, 02:22 PM EDT
Msg. 59230 of 59231
Jump to msg. #
Say, you folks using iHub might want to know: if you are on iHub and run out of free posts, just keep hitting your back arrow until you get to the last allowed posting page, erase whatever you typed in the previous post, and use it again. It is kind of a pain to only drop by once a week and then NOT be able to complete a simple conversation... but their system DOES prevent some spam."
"John Heine, a spokesman for the SEC, said the agency has never prosecuted anyone for missing the deadline to file insider-transaction forms with the agency. In fact, Heine said, insiders routinely miss the deadline. "It's something we're starting to crack down on," Heine said. Bush was investigated by the SEC for insider trading, but the probe ended in 1993 without any charges being filed against the President. Democrats, including former Texas Governor Ann Richards, have charged that the investigation was a whitewash because of Bush's political relationships."
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20020722/leopold20020718
BTW, follow the Harken trail and see George Soros all over it.
Vexari: there was an oxymoronic dilemma for the naming of the board. Innuendos are passe. Redundancy is a tautology. Egos are mean to be crushed. Plus, we're too busy saving the world from itself.
Hey! Just trying to help.