Science and Technology news... :: View topic - Gas Hits $ 5.98 in Democrap Cities! LOL !

Spaceman · Guest

jmfbahciv wrote:
[quote]Robert J. Kolker wrote:
Jack Linthicum wrote:

You really believe that, don>t you? You have to know why something
works before it works? Neither of those two knew why the transistor
worked and had it wrong in their patent.

Either way, classical physics cannot explain the transistor. The
theory of semi-conductors is now better established than it was in
1947 or in 1933 when Lilienfeld got his patent. It now guides all
semi-conductor device developemnt.

Get it straight. Classical physics is totally unable to deal with the
detailed actions of semi-conductiors.

Bob Kolker

One of my exercises in Physics 101 was TVs and electrons and hitting
the screen.
[/quote]
So you skipped the real basic stuff like ballistics then?
:)

4105 Dead · Guest

On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 09:09:19 -0400, alexy <nospam@asbry.net> wrote:

[quote]Video61@tcq.net wrote:

On Jun 27, 11:12 pm, alexy <nos...@asbry.net> wrote:
Vide...@tcq.net wrote:
i want alex to be honest and say that the fed assumed some of wall
streets debt.

Sure. Tell me who on wall street had their debt assumed, who they owed
that money to, and point me to articles saying that the fed assumed
that debt.

I>m well aware of actions they took to prop up assets, but once you
show me info on this debt assumption, I would be glad to acknowledge
it.

--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.

try as you may to quibble/wiggle out of this, this says it all,

June 27 (Bloomberg) -- The Federal Reserve agreed in March to take on
$30 billion of Bear Stearns Cos. assets after JPMorgan Chase & Co.
said the portfolio was too risky for the company to absorb.
Right, so the fed took those risky ASSETS that JPM didn>t want to buy.
I thought you were going to provide an example where they assumed
DEBT?

Still waiting.

Although I don>t expect much from someone who can>t tell the
difference between an asset and a liability.
[/quote]
The Fed has not assumed the debt. They have, however, insured it,
which of course leaves open the possibility that they will have to pay
it at some future point.
--

What do you call a Republican with a conscience?

An ex-Republican.

http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=8827 (From Yang, AthD (h.c)

"Prosperity and peace are in the balance," -- Putsch, not admitting that he>s against both

Putsch: leading America to asymetric warfare since 2001

Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Pay your taxes so the rich don>t have to.
For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary,
http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
For news feed (free, 10-20 articles a day)
Zepps_News-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
For essays (donations accepted, 2 articles/week)
Zepps_essays-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
a.a. #2211 -- Bryan Zepp Jamieson

Doobie Keebler · Guest

On Jun 27, 10:23 pm, retrogro...@comcast.net wrote:

[quote]Why did the FBI arrest 400 mortgage folks?

Why? Because most of them falsified mortgage applications so that they
looked like by creditworthy borrowers.
e.

citation?

Read the newspapers or the fucking indictments. Are you living in a
cave? Or just listening to FOX news?
[/quote]
You>re reading it wrong... "among those indicted were real-estate
agents, lawyers, appraisers and borrowers."

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a7tFou.vUbrc&refer=home

Or, are you laying the blame on 'regular joe' types? Wrong!

-=d00b

bvallely@aol.com · Guest

Yes or no - was there a great recession/depression after WWI?

calderhome@yahoo.com · Guest

On Jun 27, 4:53 pm, The Trucker <mik...@verizon.net> wrote:

"You realized that carbon injection from power plants can make the
algae grow
several times faster than in a pond. You have not yet understood
that the
power plant people can profit from the carbon certificates they earn
from
sequestering the carbon. "
____________________

I use to have a paragraph on my web page about algae and coal plants,
and much more details of the many production processes proposed, but I
took it all off after I lost interest in algae. Some people feed
algae wheat, others sugar on top of added CO2. There are 101 schemes
but they will never replace fossil fuels. Will "clean coal" ever be
viable? We don>t know. The processes people are describing for
"clean coal" do not exist as fact yet. We know nuclear is clean and
carbon free and is an old and proven technology. Nuclear energy CAN
replace fossil fuels, so why are we wasting time pouring billions of
dollars into biofuels which can only produce such a small amount of
fuel at such a high cost to our society? Biofuels, even algae, use up
far too much land. A large nuclear reactor is usually situated on
about 640 acres, one square mile, not thousands or millions of square
miles.

From my web page -

"Even if the United States used its entire 300 million acres of
cropland for ethanol production, thus bringing our land based food
production to absolute zero, we would still only satisfy 15% of
national highway energy demand."

SEE "The False hope of biofuels"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/30/AR2006063001480_pf.html

I use to be interested in algae until I researched the schemes in
detail. I even tried to think about ways to grow and harvest algae in
the ocean using nuclear powered ships and seeding the algae with iron
dust to increase their growth and create vast algae blooms. Energy
wise it made no sense. If you use open air algae ponds or ocean
growth (the only ways to get adequate sunlight), you cannot use
genetically engineered algae. If you use closed box algae systems you
have to feed them sugars or starches, not just CO2. The energy has to
come from somewhere outside the algae as the algae do not produce
energy on their own. All our energy ultimately comes from nuclear
energy, and that includes wind, solar, and even geothermal. If you
trace back the source to the original point of creation of the energy,
it is all nuclear energy, both fusion and fission.

If we want a high energy power energy source that is carbon free, that
is reliable and can produce power 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, and
does not require vast amounts of land, then nuclear energy is THE only
solution. 10,000 years worth of $2.00 a gallon synthetic gasoline is
possible with fission nuclear power, and all carbon neutral. There is
no carbon in uranium, plutonium, or thorium fuels. These metals are
of little or no use to us for anything except power, so why not
destroy them through nuclear fission rather than destroy our food
supply, our topsoil, our forests, or cover the country in millions of
acres of concrete algae ponds? If you cover an acre of land with a
concrete lined algae pond, you have destroyed that acre of land for
any other natural or human use. You may provide a breeding ground for
mosquitoes, but little else.

Barack Obama is dead wrong on his energy plans and will lead us to
economic and environmental suicide. We need to use oil, oil shale,
coal, and other fossil fuels just to keep our society alive until we
can build enough nuclear power plants to make fossil fuels obsolete.
There are no QUICK FIX solutions. Biofuels just waste money, food,
time, land, and are pointing us in the WRONG direction, away from
where the real energy lies, in the nucleus of the atom. I cannot tell
you who will be the next president, but I can tell you that on January
22nd, 2013, Barack Obama will not be our president unless he changes
his energy policies. He will be another failed one term president
like Jimmy Carter and he will be thrown out of office. A pretty face
and a winning personality are not enough. You have to deliver a
truthful and effective energy policy, which Obama has not done. Obama
is in bed with the ethanol lobby, not in bed with real environmental
scientists. He comes from the nation>s second biggest corn state,
Illinois. His energy policies are based on political greed for power,
not on science or consideration for the safety and affordability of
the world>s food supply.

Christopher Calder - http://home.att.net/~meditation/bio-fuel-hoax.html

Guest

On Jun 28, 11:02 am, retrogro...@comcast.net wrote:
[quote]On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 08:35:43 -0700, 4105 Dead

zepp22114...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
Although I don>t expect much from someone who can>t tell the
difference between an asset and a liability.

The Fed has not assumed the debt. They have, however, insured it,
which of course leaves open the possibility that they will have to pay
it at some future point.

And some see that as a certainty and hence an assumption of the debt.
;-
[/quote]
and that is exactly correct. the fed has taken in perhaps hundreds of
billions of dollars of toxic paper as so-called collateral for the
loans they are providing for the financial parasites.
so far since this so-called loan window opened, maybe 6 -8 months
ago, i am unaware of any of the parasites that have repaid the loans.
what we do not hear is that it appears these loans are renewed every
28 days, and the fed is holding the worthless paper, or insuring
worthless paper, as the parasites have to even write down more of this
stuff, thus lowering their ability to stay solvent. so what happens if
or when they go belly up? debt forgiveness.
as this article suggests, the stuff is worthless, it ends in
bankruptcy. and we are holding billions of dollars of this stuff as
collateral, its laughable that anyone thinks this is not debt
forgiveness.

http://www.prudentbear.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=frontpage&Itemid=69&art_id=4712

The Bear>s Lair, by Martin Hutchinson
Anatomy of a credit crunch
August 05, 2007

Martin Hutchinson is the author of "Great Conservatives" (Academica
Press, 2005) -- details can be found on the Web site www.greatconservatives..com

The German bank IKB has been the recipient of an $11 billion bailout.
$64 billion of leveraged buyout financings have been withdrawn in the
last month. Standard and Poors have talked of down-rating Bear
Stearns, two of whose funds have collapsed. We are clearly in the
beginning phase of a classic credit crunch, and it’s therefore worth
looking at how these have played out in the past, and where and how
holes in the fabric of the world’s financial system are most likely to
appear.

Credit crunches are relatively rare, rarer than stock market
downturns. There was no credit crunch in 2000-02, though the stock
market downturn was substantial. In 1989-92 there was a mild credit
crunch in junk bonds and New England real estate, but relatively
little spillover to other areas of the credit market. In 1982, there
was a credit crunch in emerging market debt, which was eventually
solved by a mass debt forgiveness and bailout of the New York banks
which were most heavily exposed. Even during that period, there was no
great credit crunch in the domestic U.S. market.

The last true credit crunch was thus that of 1973-74, which was
particularly severe in Britain but spread throughout the international
debt markets. That’s before the working lifetime of most market
participants today. Sam Molinaro, chief financial officer of Bear
Stearns said Friday that conditions in the fixed income market were
“as bad as I have seen in 22 years” – since he is 49 he was presumably
referring to his period of participation in the market rather than
some hitherto obscure crisis in 1985, from memory a placid and bullish
year. One can pause for a moment to mourn the length of institutional
memory of 1950s London, where Morgan Grenfell’s chairman Lord Bicester
served until his death in office at 89, thus being able to give his
junior colleagues a first hand account not only of the 1929 crash but
of its predecessors in 1890 and 1907.

It’s worth looking at how the credit crunch of 1973-4 developed.

Like the last few years, the early 1970s was a period in both Britain
and the United States of rapidly rising money supply and asset prices,
but with stocks still mostly below the level of a record-setting bull
market a few years earlier. In the U.S., Federal Reserve Chairman
Arthur Burns inflated the money supply by over 10% per annum during
the years 1971-73, in order to lift the United States from recession
and allegedly assist President Richard Nixon’s 1972 re-election.

In Britain, the Bank of England in 1971 ended quantitative credit
controls and moved to a free market system, while prime minister
Edward Heath abandoned control of both the money supply and public
expenditure and embarked on a “dash for growth.” This quickly produced
a real estate bubble, both in housing but particularly in office
property, the supply of which was still somewhat restricted by the
aftermath of World War II and the lengthy period of building
restrictions that followed. Since the period was one of worldwide
economic boom, commodity prices also soared, in many cases reaching
levels they were not to touch again until after 2000; the first oil
crisis, in which oil prices rose from $2 to $10 a barrel, occurred in
October 1973.

The main difference between 1973 and now was inflation, which ran in
the US at 6.2% and in Britain at 9.2% in that year. That reflected
the worldwide increase in commodity prices, which was not offset by
worldwide deflation through outsourcing. Interest rates in nominal
terms were correspondingly higher than today and Britain in particular
was running a tighter monetary policy, with Minimum Lending Rate
rising from 11.5% to 13% as the crisis began in October 1973. However
longer term rates were around zero in real terms, as today.

The credit crunch appeared through the London secondary banks, fairly
similar institutions to today’s sub-prime mortgage lenders, albeit
with their portfolios concentrated on commercial rather than
residential loans. Rumblings appeared from this sector in the spring
of 1973, and international bond market conditions became very
difficult after June, but it was not until November 30 that the first
secondary bank, London and County Securities, went into insolvency.
However the cascade of bankruptcies that followed was rapid and very
severe. By December 19 the Bank of England was organizing a “lifeboat”
support package to preserve liquidity in the market and allow orderly
liquidation of the fringe banks’ portfolios. At its peak the
“lifeboat” had loans outstanding to no fewer than 30 banks, and there
was fear at one stage that the gigantic National Westminster Bank
would go under.

The British economy had two dreadful years in 1974 and 1975, with a
miners’ strike, a 3-day workweek and a hard-left Labour government.
The Financial Times share index dropped from its 1969 and 1972 peaks
of over 500, and around 400 in late 1973 to a low of 150, a drop of
70% in nominal terms and a lower level in real terms than its nadir of
40.4 after the 1940 evacuation of Dunkirk. The credit crunch persisted
until the end of 1975, lasting for around 2½ years in all, and
bankrupted most of the entrepreneurial financial institutions in the
City of London, including notably Jessel Securities, a major fund
manager, and Slater Walker, which until 1973 had been the pre-eminent
financial innovator of its day.

Internationally, the British secondary banking crisis had initially
only a moderate effect. The Eurobond market closed almost completely
in December 1973, one of its last issues being the only Euro-financing
ever done in Lebanese pounds – by the time the market reopened for
such exotica in 1977 or so, Lebanon was engulfed in civil war. The
syndicated loan market however remained open during the first quarter
of 1974, since loans by this stage were made on a floating interest
rate basis based on the London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR) -- thus
higher inflation did not automatically destroy their value. There was
indeed a large amount of both supply and demand in the banking system,
since the oil exporting countries of the Middle East for the first
time built up multi-billion dollar balances, mostly held in US and
British banks, while countries such as Japan found themselves with a
huge oil-related hole in the balance of payments and a consequent need
to borrow heavily.

The next leg of the 1973-74 credit crunch came with the bankruptcy of
the medium sized German bank I.D. Herstatt, which took place on June
26, 1974. This would normally have caused only a modest ripple
internationally, but the foolish German authorities closed the bank in
mid-afternoon, while New York was still trading. A number of banks,
including my own employers the merchant bank Hill Samuel, had entered
into spot foreign exchange transactions, and had paid deutschemarks
into Herstatt, expecting to receive dollars from Chase Manhattan,
Herstatt’s New York correspondent. The dollars were never paid. This
proved to be utterly destructive of international banking confidence;
a period of illiquidity followed which was similar only to that after
the Creditanstalt failure of 1931. Japanese trust banks, a highly
solid and well behaved bunch, were forced to borrow at 2% above LIBOR
for around a year, making their funding cost 2% higher than the best
U.S. and European banks. The U.S. banking system also got into
difficulties, with the Franklin National Bank, a major institution
which had invented the bank credit card in 1952, being declared
insolvent on October 8, 1974.

The U.S. and British economies went into recession in late 1973,
dragged down by the combined effect of the credit crunch and the oil
price spike, but the recession was fairly short-lived, ending in late
1974. Politicians were throughout unaware of the true position, as
evidenced by the Gerald Ford administration’s switch from distributing
“Whip Inflation Now” buttons to proposing a recession-fighting public
spending package within the space of six weeks in late 1974, after the
economy had already been in recession for a year. Indeed, the final
major effects of the credit crunch, the bankruptcy of Slater Walker
and the near-bankruptcy of New York City, did not occur until the
autumn of 1975, while Cleveland’s default did not occur until 1978.

There are a number of lessons we can learn from this history about the
credit crunch we appear to be entering:

· Credit crunches very often occur after periods of excessive
monetary expansion which appear to produce halcyon economic conditions
of rapid worldwide growth, albeit with rising commodity prices. Check!

· “Foreshocks” occur for some considerable period before the
credit crunch, generally concentrated in areas where lending has been
most vigorous. In the Latin American credit crunch of 1981-2, the
market more or less closed for new lending at the end of 1981, but
default did not occur until August 1982. Check – the sub-prime
mortgage market went into severe difficulties in February.

· Once a credit crunch hits, it inevitably spreads to other
areas where lending has been aggressive, although it may take some
months to do so. The international bond markets closed around the same
time as the 1973 secondary banking crisis, but the loan markets did
not close until several months later. The current crunch appears now
to have spread to the LBO market; the emerging market debt market
surely cannot be far behind.

· The principal effect of a credit crunch is to dry up lending
in general. Bank balance sheets and bond investors’ portfolios become
constipated, with no room for new deals and an urgent need for
repayment of outstanding loans and cancellation of commitments. In
1974, it became very difficult to get a “backstop” credit line for
commercial paper issues, so even though the commercial paper market
remained open (there being no real equivalent of the Penn Central
collapse of 4 years earlier) issuance became impossible for all but
the most liquid companies.

Sub-prime mortgages didn’t cause this to happen this time around,
because they had mostly been packaged and sold to outsiders such as
the unfortunate IKB. However the drying up of the LBO market is
causing illiquidity at the heart of the system. In just a few weeks,
the major LBO market lenders have provided transaction bridge
financing (short term lending) totaling around $12 billion for the
Chrysler LBO, $20 billion for Boots and $35 billion for Texas
Utilities, to name only 3 deals. Long term takeout financing for all
three transactions appears now to be unobtainable; hence major bank
and investment bank balance sheets have suddenly become highly
illiquid and concentrated in a few unattractive credit risks.

• Assets become almost impossible to sell during a credit crunch, and
trading books become ossified, with remnants of deals attempted years
earlier remaining on them and clogging up liquidity. Bargain-hunters
attempt to pick up equity and loan assets involved in the crunch at
prices far below those of a year earlier, but the “bargains” are
chimerical; most such assets end in bankruptcy as confidence never
returns.

• Credit crunches don’t typically end quickly; their effects drag on
for at least a couple of years. During that period, credit is very
difficult to obtain and even well-run solvent companies can find
themselves in sudden difficulties. It is impossible to predict which
companies will be forced to declare bankruptcy, but major bankruptcies
there will undoubtedly be. One difference from the 1970s is the
increased importance of trial lawyers and aggressiveness of
prosecutors; if 2001-05 is anything to go by, bankruptcies will be
followed by prosecutions of the managements involved, sequestrations
of their assets and generally lengthy prison terms. Jeff Skilling’s
fate in the U.S. has not been all that different to Mikhail
Khodorkovsky’s in Russia, although his prison is probably somewhat
warmer than the latter’s Siberian incarceration.

• Stock markets and real estate markets will go into a lengthy period
of illiquidity and quiescence, with price drops far in excess of those
currently expected. In a period when credit is almost impossible to
obtain, valuation metrics that depend on the use of credit quickly
become worthless. US business is far more leveraged than in 1973; its
decline in value will thus be correspondingly more intense. Only
liquid companies in the liquid countries of East Asia, particularly
Japan, and maybe the Arabian Gulf states are likely to be fortified by
the experience.

Joyful prospect, isn’t it? But that’s what happens after a decade of
fiat money run mad.

Guest

On Jun 28, 12:22 pm, krw <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
[quote]In article <6a265485-59d5-4bf4-944a-a08d86d85874
@f63g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, Vide...@tcq.net says...

On Jun 27, 11:56 am, krw <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
In article <b0896a31-f6b2-41b3-99e4-
0bb276a51...@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, Vide...@tcq.net says...

On Jun 27, 7:48 am, krw <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
In article <24a692b6-710e-433c-b27a-66a654ec4750@
34g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, Vide...@tcq.net says...

On Jun 26, 8:49 pm, krw <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
In article <72e405ec-45aa-4022-bb27-8204ae63bf82@
34g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, Vide...@tcq.net says...

On Jun 26, 4:03 pm, billimmel...@yahoo.com wrote:
Push has come to shove. A dynamic national effort is required to
develope and market practical electric cars. The technologly is here.
But does the America public and the federal government have the will
and desire to make the change? Thinking that offshore drilling is
going to end the energy crisis is foolish. If the domestic and foreign
economies do not make an adjustment to alternative energy systems a
worldwide crisis will ensue. If any thinks that "salvation" for the
equities market is just around the corner said persons should be
declared mentally incompetent
and their assests isolated for protection.

bill

*Post WW2 plan to restore ravaged europe.

ps. Thoughts; America is now #3 in exports. Who wants our automobiles?
Any thing we make
the asians can make as well and cheaper. America is socially,
racially, and politcally divided
beyond repair.

you mean a new deal. to do that, we cannot allow one conservative/
libertarian left with any power to obstruct, or shill for unproductive
wealth.

Spoken like a true Stalinist.

--
Keith

The great liberal John Stuart Mill was correct when he said not all
stupid people are conservatives, but most conservatives are stupid
people. I would add that many who call themselves conservatives are
reactionary and ruled by their hate and fears.

What an idiot.

is that all you have. snicker.

Yes, all I can do is snicker at fools like you.

mills was correct then. you call someone a name, you get it right
back stupid.

You already have more than your share of stupid, trust me.

--
Keith

is that all you have as your conservative empire built on theft
crumbles:) snicker, keep believing, the Führer needs you. or, the
truth, ignore it, i order you to.

If your stupid shell ever cracks, you might have a chance of
surviving long enough for your pimples to dry up.

hitler and the fascists hated liberals,

So much for your argument. ...as shallow as it was.

[/quote]
you mean you cannot refute it. hitler hated liberals. the truth, just
ignore it, thats a order!

[quote]Among the key elements of Nazism were anti-parliamentarism, ethnic
nationalism, racism, collectivism,[11][12] eugenics, antisemitism,
opposition to economic liberalism and political liberalism,[13][14]
[12] anti-communism, and totalitarianism.

Exactly the modern "liberal" agenda, as you so aptly demonstrate.

[/quote]
you cannot possible be that stupid correct? liberals are anti-
liberal?
keiths motto, the truth, just ignore it, thats a order!

[quote]--
Keith[/quote]

Guest

On Jun 28, 10:13 am, Werner <whetz...@mac.com> wrote:
[quote]On Jun 27, 10:06 pm, retrogro...@comcast.net wrote:

On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 18:43:41 -0700 (PDT), Werner <whetz...@mac.com
wrote:
...

Business now pays a tremendous amount for worker health. Imagine if GM
had to pay 1/2 as much per worker for health care.

Wake up. We>re losing the competition with the countries that already
have it. And you boys argue we need to avoid it to be competitive?
LOL.

Wake up!

Exactly. Imagine if you and I paid for our own health care like we pay
for our own food and housing. That would lower the price of cars and
more people would buy them.
[/quote]
we already have that option, and the results, reality, just ignore
it, thats a order! 50 million and growing uninsured. if you really
wanted to pay the true price of consumables, just get government out
of it. like the millions of cars, trucks, buses, planes, computers,
etc. that they buy. then you can really see the true cost of
consumables. it will simply be to high for most to buy. then the
factories that make them, will even shrink in size further, thus
adding to the legions of ex-consumers.
what you pine for is somalia, a true workers paradise, and a paradise
where everyone is responsible for themselves. a true economic
powerhouse.

Guest

On Jun 28, 10:17 am, Werner <whetz...@mac.com> wrote:
[quote]On Jun 27, 10:18 pm, h...@nospam.org wrote:

On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 18:34:20 -0700 (PDT), Werner <whetz...@mac.com
wrote:

On Jun 27, 2:31 pm, "Dr. Cavortian" <perryneh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
With the stock markets' steep plunge yesterday (June 26), most
financial observers say the U.S. should brace for either a long
"recovery" or a dive into even deeper economy woes.

And Wall Street>s fake optimism is just that.

-------------------------
"This Recession, It>s Just Beginning"

....

Dollars in the common treasury are like fish in the common sea -
anyone who can will harvest to extinction. That is why socialism is
fundamentally corrupting and can not work. The Fed is making a lot of
paper fish. This is an illusion of wealth. The real fish are gone.

Socialism isn>t the problem nimrod. The problem is the capitalists.
And the Rebublicans are in their pockets and make a habit out of
letting the foxes guard the henhouse.

Hal

Don>t worry. Capital is leaving for better pastures or going broke.
[/quote]
its called deregulation. you are simply outraged at the results of
your own polices, then you blame government.

[quote]You can see the result.http://www.capitaldistrict-lp.org/how.shtml
Dollars in the common treasury are like fish in the common sea -
anyone who can will harvest to extinction. That is why socialism is
fundamentally corrupting and can not work. The Fed is making a lot of
paper fish. This is an illusion of wealth. The real fish are gone.
----
Tired of Politics as Usual? Do something. â€¨ http://www.capitaldistrict-lp.org/RevolutionMarch.html

----
http://www.capitaldistrict-lp.org/how.shtml
Tired of Politics as Usual? Do something. ?
http://www.capitaldistrict-lp.org/RevolutionMarch.html[/quote]

Jim Austin · Guest

On Jun 28, 9:09 am, retrogro...@comcast.net wrote:
[quote]On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 01:30:44 +1000, <tHe_PC_JeLLy BeAn!!> wrote:

"Jim Austin" <b...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:ba47d09e-43f0-4719-b650-a993d02c97bc@s21g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 26, 1:18 pm, lorad...@cs.com wrote:
On Jun 26, 11:16 am, Jim Austin <b...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
distracting drivel.

Try this instead:
'State Instituted Fear as a Means of Control?'

I tried it. It wasn>t very good -- a bit too broad.

The fear of terrorism was instituted by terrorists. Those succumbing
to the fear seek safety through groveling before terrorists, acceding
to their demands, surrendering. Those succumbing to fear of terrorists
advocate liberal policies.

Those refusing to succumb to fear of terrorists demand resistance,
opposition, retaliation to terrorists.

I>m thinking about his argument.
[/quote]
No actual thought here. He>s going by gut reaction.

[quote]I see John Wayne in one scenario?
What>s he do? He walks into the bar, up to the guy he>s got an issue
with and gasp - TALKS TO HIM.
[/quote]
Not after the guy starts shooting. Then Wayne just blows him away.

[quote]Austen looks more like Peter Lorre in Casablanca, whiney and scared
looking for a way out.
[/quote]
Sounds like a liberal looking for an exit strategy.

[quote]He>ll slip up to someone and cowardly stick a
knife in their ribs or pay someone else to do it for him, but actual
face to face talk is too scary.
[/quote]
That>s not what Peter Lorre did in Casablanca. All he did was try to
run away while Nazis shoot at him, just as liberals want to run while
terrorists try to kill them.

[quote]And as the krauts haul him out of the cafe he pleads "Rick, help me!!!!!"
[/quote]
Again, sounds like liberals.

[quote]Jim imagines himself John Wayne, but he>s really Peter Lorre. He>s
more inclined to faceless vandalism than face to face talk. which is
to say typical of the new right.
[/quote]
They call that projection. Liberals make fun of John Wayne while they
praise the likes of Peter Lorre.

California Poppy · Guest

On Jun 26, 2:03ï¿½pm, billimmel...@yahoo.com wrote:
[quote]Push has come to shove. A dynamic national effort is required to
develope and market practical electric cars. The technologly is here.
But does the ï¿½America public and the federal government have the will
and desire to make the change? Thinking that offshore drilling is
going to end the energy crisis is foolish. If the domestic and foreign
economies do not make an adjustment to alternative energy systems a
worldwide crisis will ensue. If any thinks that "salvation" for the
equities market is just around the corner said persons should be
declared mentally incompetent
and their assests isolated for protection.

bill

*Post WW2 plan to restore ravaged europe.

ps. Thoughts; America is now #3 in exports. Who wants our automobiles?
Any thing we make
ï¿½ ï¿½ ï¿½ the asians can make as well and cheaper. America is socially,
racially, and politcally divided
ï¿½ ï¿½ ï¿½ beyond repair.
[/quote]
Much more practical would be something to convert older cars and make
them more energy efficient, since most of us won>t be buying new for a
number of years.

Guest

On Jun 28, 9:35 am, "basilod" <basi...@verizon.net> wrote:
[quote]wis...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:7qkc64941oupfuop4h4ot1impueskn7qtl@4ax.com...

????????

ted

You may start on the road of understanding by visiting this page (and then
other pages on that web-site):http://www.theocracywatch.org/christian_zionism.htm[/quote]

Jerry Kraus · Guest

On Jun 27, 4:36 pm, David Johnston <da...@block.net> wrote:
[quote]On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 23:26:46 -0400, "Spaceman"

space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote:
David Johnston wrote:
[/quote]

[quote]Wishful fantasies are not critical thinking.

True,
Like time travel, worm holes, point particles, massless
energy.

Ouch..
:)

I have no idea what you are babbling about.
[/quote]
He>s noting that many of the implications of relativity theory are
more science fiction than science fact.

Jerry Kraus · Guest

On Jun 27, 4:11 pm, "Robert J. Kolker" <bobkol...@comcast.net> wrote:
[quote]Jack Linthicum wrote:

Get it straight. Classical physics is totally unable to deal with the
detailed actions of semi-conductiors.
[/quote]

Actually, I tend to agree with you about this. But Quantum Mechanics
can handle the concepts involved, I believe. Relativity is not
required. And Quantum Mechanics is largely inconsistent with
Relativity. They are at odds.

Guest

On Jun 28, 1:55 pm, alexy <nos...@asbry.net> wrote:
[quote]Vide...@tcq.net wrote:
On Jun 28, 11:02 am, retrogro...@comcast.net wrote:
On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 08:35:43 -0700, 4105 Dead

zepp22114...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
Although I don>t expect much from someone who can>t tell the
difference between an asset and a liability.

The Fed has not assumed the debt. They have, however, insured it,
which of course leaves open the possibility that they will have to pay
it at some future point.

And some see that as a certainty and hence an assumption of the debt.
;-

and that is exactly correct. the fed has taken in perhaps hundreds of
billions of dollars of toxic paper as so-called collateral for the
loans they are providing for the financial parasites.
so far since this so-called loan window opened, maybe 6 -8 months
ago, i am unaware of any of the parasites that have repaid the loans.
what we do not hear is that it appears these loans are renewed every
28 days, and the fed is holding the worthless paper, or insuring
worthless paper, as the parasites have to even write down more of this
stuff, thus lowering their ability to stay solvent. so what happens if
or when they go belly up? debt forgiveness.
as this article suggests, the stuff is worthless, it ends in
bankruptcy. and we are holding billions of dollars of this stuff as
collateral, its laughable that anyone thinks this is not debt
forgiveness.

Okay, so now you are talking about a situation entirely different from
the JPM purchase of BS. And in this one, it is possible to connect a
thread, however tenuous, to possible debt forgiveness.

The basic questions I asked in the other case, which you could not
even begin to answer, actually have answers here:

Creditor: The Fed
Debtor: An investment bank
Debt forgiven: None
Possible future debt forfeiture: Pure speculation
Basis for assuming bad debt will be forgiven rather than collected
through attachment of other assets: Pure speculation
Validity of the claim that any actual occurrences represent debt
forgiveness: Little to none
--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.
[/quote]
i wonder what the fed is going to do with the so-called assets they
assumed in the bear bailout? that is a better question.


www.GetXFactor.com Leading Technology, Science, Agriculture News and information	Part of the Identityscape.com network... getxfactor.com jmoodmusic.com smartbusinesschoices.com mintdepot.com lowfaresalways.com evangelicalview.com shoppingpodder.com soproudlywehail.com webnews.ws currenthumor.com

Science and Technology news... Forum Index -> Economy Forum	Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, ... 479, 480, 481 Next
Page 2 of 481