Coincidence - people are manipulating the market

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

Hey, kids! Do you ever get tired of Fox News' crops? I don't mean the food
they might be literally growing, in Glenn Beck's Doom Room, in preparation for
Imminent Socialist Panic. I'm talking about the way they manipulate video to
make it look like people are just straight up saying the opposite thing they
actually said. Well, it's been bothering the media critics at Media Matters For
America for some time, and they have, for a long time, been cataloging "examples
of Fox News hosts and correspondents cropping comments by progressives and
Democratic political figures in a manner that misrepresents them." A new mash-up
video offers some side-by-side examples of what they're talking about.

Some constructive criticism? I think the third example -- Obama's "empathy"
criteria for Supreme Court justice -- isn't the best example of a Fox cropping.
While it's certainly true that Major Garrett's statement, "That aggravates those
who feel that justices should follow the Constitution and legislative intent,"
seems to neatly ignore the fact that Obama's next statement was "I will seek
someone who is dedicated to the rule of law, who honors our Constitutional
traditions, who respects the integrity of the judicial process, and the
appropriate limits of the judicial role," the fact is, just about every news
organization honed in on the "empathy" part of the statement. It became the
sound bite from that press exchange.

In a more lengthy report, however, Media Matters has other candidates that
are fitting examples of these games with videotape, well worth reviewing. Key
examples include Sean Hannity's intentional omission of Obama's admonishment of
Europeans' "casual...insidious" anti-Americanism to make it look like Obama was
apologizing for the United States, and Wendell Goler's splice-happy report that
made it look like Obama was in favor of "European-style health care," when he
was actually specifically opposing it. Also close to my heart is Fox's
misleading insertion of an out-of-context Joe Biden clip into a report, for
which the network eventually had to apologize. At the time, I opined:

It's very sad, and weird, because Fox News would have made their point just
fine if they hadn't included the misleading part of this clip. All they've
really done is demonstrate that they do not have enough faith in their own
editorial premises to avoid bolstering them with falsehoods. But more to the
point, whoever is responsible for putting this video together needs to accept a
new prevailing reality, that stupid little lies like this will be debunked and
exposed very quickly, so they may as well just cut out this nonsense
entirely.

Isn't anyone noticing that the person who is out promoting Rev Wright to get out to talk is one of Hillary's biggest supporters. This is not a coincidence. This is what I call Smear! I'm just disgusted with the whole "game".

(The link to the Hannity & Colmes interview referred to is http://www.911podcasts.com/files/video/FetzerHannityColmes200606222.wmv). I would definitely recommend watching this.

Regardless of your position on this topic, you cannot help but admit that a major coincidence (at the very least) took place on the morning of June 23, 2006.

It all began on the evening of June 22, 2006, when Hannity & Colmes (on the FOX/RNC Channel) had a guest on by the name of Dr. James H. Fetzer (see endnote). Fetzer is a member of 9/11 Scholars for Truth. Due to some unexpected initial confusion on the part of the hosts regarding their chosen attack theme (they got their facts FOXED, as Fetzer said), Fetzer was given a rare opportunity to answer an open-ended question -- almost without interruption. As the lawyers all say, Never ask a witness any question to which you do not already know the answer.

Colmes asked Fetzer something to the effect, So can you give us one piece of evidence that would tend to point toward 9/11 being an inside job by the Bush Administration?

While Ollie North (who was guest hosting for Hannity) was apparently still lost in confusion, Fetzer had a rare opportunity to speak a few full sentences without hostile, obnoxious interruptions. He said (and I'm paraphrasing here again), I point you to Secretary of Transportation Norman Minetta's testimony before the 9/11 Commission. Minetta said he had encountered Vice President Cheney in a bunker in Washington, DC, at 9:20 AM, on the day of the attacks [forty-three minutes earlier than Cheney said he had arrived]. Every few seconds a young man would come into the room and say, 'Sir, it's 50 miles out. Sir, it's 40 miles out. Sir, it's 30 miles out,' and so on. Finally the young man asked the Vice President, 'Sir, do the orders still stand?' Cheney replied gruffly, 'Of course, the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?'

Fetzer went on to explain that only later did Minetta learn that the young man was referring to Flight 77 approaching Washington, DC, and the orders the young man was referring to were obviously orders NOT to shoot the plane down. That's why the young man had finally asked if the orders still stood, to which Cheney replied that they did. Shortly thereafter, Flight 77 (or a reasonable facsimile thereof) struck the Pentagon.

Obviously, the producers of the Hannity & Colmes Propaganda Hour had not anticipated such a damning bit of irrefutable evidence to escape over their airwaves to their glassy-eyed, drool-chinned audience.

Here's the Real Kicker... The very next morning, less than twelve hours after his 9/11 testimony had been unexpectedly exposed to the FOX faithful, Norman Minetta resigned as Secretary of Transportation.

What an unbelievably amazing coincidence of timing!

Just for the sake of argument, let's say Minetta's timing was truly nothing more than a coincidence. If so, then he couldn't have picked a worse time to announce it (unless it was his relatively subtle way of sending a message to the masses). Or, if he was forced to resign by Bush/Cheney (for whatever reason), they couldn't have picked a more self-incriminating time to make it happen.

There has been barely a peep about Minetta's resignation in the mainstream media. I saw the same, generic, non-informational, totally uncurious five-second clip about it several times, but there has been absolutely no speculation as to why he did it (although his recent back surgery is implied to be the main reason). That's incredibly unusual behavior for our babbling heads, isn't it? Other high-level resignations in the last few months from the Bush Administration were the subject of endless babble among the MSM elite.

A Final Thought I can only imagine the sudden conflicting thoughts of at least five out of every one hundred Fox viewers who had heard Fetzer mention Minetta's damning testimony just a few hours before Minetta resigned. What must they have been thinking for a short time before their self-hypnosis kicked back in?

Click here to download the clip of the four-minute interview (in Windows Media Format). An AVI version is here.

[Note: James H. Fetzer (FM) Distinguished McKnight University Professor of Philosophy at the University of Minnesota, Duluth, a former Marine Corps officer, author or editor of more than 20 books, and co-chair of Scholars for 9/11 Truth.]
Source: http://www.libertyforum.org/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=consp_911&Number=284742411#Post294752412

out of control when the race was within a few points, which only helps the dems out. The market can easily be manipulated by anyone with money (the Warren Buffets and George Soros' of the world) not to mention other countries.

My take on the whole election though is white guilt is going to push O into office. This is an historic election, people get caught up in the frenzy and emotion of it all, want to be a part of history in some small way, and voting for O seems not only politically correct (did you know you're a racist if you don't vote for him?) but eases a little of the white guilt some people have (another touchy-feely, PC thing to have). A man who has not had to answer tough questions, has little to no experience, has associations with radical tendencies, flip flops on most issues and is willing to wave the white flag is most likely going to be our next president. My only questoin is, what are Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann and all the other lefties going to talk about for the next 4 years? I have a feeling the real truth about O is going to come out in the coming years.

Barney Fife writing proposal now to bail out the automakers with $25B stipulating GOVERNMENT OWNERSHIP.

The government is backing away from buying troubled mortgages and now are going to put it in an investment program taking capital. The facts changed. His approach is to give banks enough cash to keep homes on the books and keep cash in the banks.

They will not bail out those people who shouldn't have taken out the loans in the first place.

I just think it's because the stocks were so low yesterday that it was a buyer's market.

everything is hunky-dorrey. Let's not get over enthusiastic here. The market has been down more than up lately. I would rather wait 6 months to see what's happening before I touch that subject.

As for O laughing in the 60 minutes interview, it doesn't bother me that much. It could be a way for him letting off steam. I, myself, when stressed out (as in federal jury duty), was so relieved the trial was over, I burst out laughing after we left the courtroom. This could be his way of relieving stress.

There's just too much going on in this government that turns me off especially with the bailouts and the so-called stimulus package, and I'm not too happy right now. I don't like the thought that every taxpayer, including my grandchildren or great-childen should I have any, are in debt to the government to the tune of ???, (all different figures thrown around on that).

As for posting, I only post when I have something to say. The news is the same old, same old, nothing interesting or new, so why post garbage like some on this board do. Right now, nothing on the news is piquing my interest.

One question I have.....how can O NOT accept the resignation of someone in his cabinet? That one has me stumped. Anyone has the right to resign from a job. Since when can you not quit a job? You want to answer that one?

Wall Street,. Nancy Pelosi, Barney Fife, and the others are making it worse with all their stupid ideas.

They WANT this to happen and give more stimulus checks to people so the people will think they are the greatest since apple pie.

I don't see any of them trying to figure out what to do that will help us except throw money away to the groups that are keeping the money to pay their bonuses and take trips.

Part of an interesting article on housing market upswing - inflation slowing down. Good news if it stays the course!

US housing starts rose sharply in February, providing some good news for the struggling housing industry. (Photo: AP)

McCain's Emission-Reduction Plan Receives Favorable Review

by: Frank Carlson

Posted August 11, 2008 | 11:43 AM (EST)

As U.S. Senators Barack Obama and John McCain begin their long descent into tit-for-tat rhetorical games, it's easy to forget key issues the two still broadly agree on: federally funded stem-cell research; nuclear nonproliferation; comprehensive immigration reform; faith-based social services; and global warming.

Obama and McCain agree that human-induced global warming exists and even on the system America should adopt to counteract it -- cap and trade, a plan that sets a limit (cap) on the amount of greenhouse gases emitted by manufacturers and power plants, for example, and then hands out credits that polluters can trade among themselves to pull themselves within the legal limits. Heavy emitters of greenhouse gases have to buy credits from low-level emitters. Cap-and-trade plans reward all sides for reducing emissions. Low-level emitters reduce in order to pile up additional credits to sell and high-level emitters reduce in order to spend less on credits.

Where Obama and McCain disagree on the plan concerns the role of the government, specifically how the government should allocate permits to companies. And unlike the current, silly spat over tire pressure gauges, this one matters.

Obama favors a full auction of the credits, which would act like a tax on companies, collecting a great deal of money right off the bat for the government to redistribute. This cash, he says, could go to alternative energy research and projects, then the credits would go to markets.

McCain says he would dole out permits in much the same way proposed by the Climate Security Act of 2007. That act failed in June to receive enough Senate support to even bring to a vote, but the basics are the same: Give the great majority of the permits away, and let the market set the price to support investment.

Here is where conventional political lines become blurred.

If you favor a more free market approach, McCain's plan may be for you because the government would collect far less money from businesses for redistribution. But if you're spooked by special interests, political favors for lobbyists and political corruption--as McCain says he is--then perhaps you side with Obama's strategy.

So what does Richard Sandor, architect of the wildly successful cap and trade system for reducing sulfur dioxide(SO2) and now CEO of the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX), say?

He's for a partial auction of credits like the one McCain is backing.

"If you look at full auctioning of permits, what happens?" Sandor asked reporters during a recent interview at his office near the Board of Trade in downtown Chicago. "The day that they are auctioned, you have a net transfer of wealth from the private sector to the public sector at that moment. What, then, happens to climate change? Nothing has happened. You have just had a transfer of wealth.
Climate Exchange, the first voluntary but legally
binding market for trading emissions in North America.

It's better to let the private sector decide where the money should go, Sandor says, which is why he's against a carbon tax. And, he adds, there is precedent for believing so.

"The program that's worked is SO2," Sandor said. "Some amount of auctioning is, I think, OK. We will implement whatever the government does. We don't have an official opinion, but I'm guided by the SO2 program and how it accomplished its objectives so cheaply that that's the way to do it."

Sandor insisted the CCX is not a policy-making entity and that it will implement any system lawmakers put forth. Much like pilots, he said, the CCX will fly whichever planes the engineers--or rather, politicians--design.

"If you design it wrong," he said, "you may have to go 30 extra miles, you may have some accidents, or crashes, and we really speak to the efficacy of the design and leave public policy to the people who are policy makers in Washington. We're not advocates."

The CCX is currently North America's only voluntary but legally binding platform for trading carbon and other emissions. Even without a mandatory cap and trade system in the U.S., many companies have already begun to reduce their emissions in the hopes of improving their public image and perhaps reaping revenues through emissions reductions.

While Sandor explains why he's against Obama's plan for the full auction of credits, his greatest priority is getting mandatory cap and trade in place, whatever the framework. Undoubtedly, this would be a great boon to the CCX, and Sandor believes it is coming.

"Both candidates, McCain and Obama, have publicly embraced it," Sandor said. "I believe in their hearts that they're committed to reducing global warming and see it as a major threat. Is it inevitable? I think so. Could there be bumps? Yes."

Those bumps, worries Sandor, include a terrorist attack that could dislodge global warming from the political agenda in favor of dealing with more immediate problems.

"And that's the nightmare scenario that I worry about because it's easy to not worry about intergenerational problems when you have immediate security needs," he says. "And I'm not suggesting that they aren't more important. In fact, they are. But the thing that will slip will be the longer-based horizon, and I think that's a danger that we have."As U.S. Senators Barack Obama and John McCain begin their long descent into tit-for-tat rhetorical games, it's easy to forget key issues the two still broadly agree on: federally funded stem-cell rese...

Pretty sad. At least the consevatives here weather the storms and stay. That pretty much says a lot about you and them, too. It's sure not like you guys never took pot shots over there. Of course, I am sure it wasn't YOU. Right.