Cknolls

THIS IS TOO GOOD: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/8034027.stm

http://www.ledgerdelaware.com/articles/200...a0453799066.txt

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/...d-44420672.html Someone misread the tea leaves.

If we break 888 and hold under it would signal the correction is underway. Should pull back to 800 and maybe all the way to 765, where there is a gap in the futures. 783.75-784 is midpoint of high/low for the year. I would like to see the futes ttrade up to 911.25 to 913 before the pullback.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 4, 2009 -> 07:43 AM) More reasons for companies to leave the US, great timing. Like Weatherford.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ May 1, 2009 -> 01:51 PM) It was the best option available. Tell me what you would have done instead. Tell me how you would feel if you own one of the funds? He told you yesterday he is against you. I would offer the bondholders a fairer slice of the pie.

So with the left hand the Administration wants to protect investors, and with the right it wants to f*** invetsors in Oppenheimer funds who through their investments own Chrysler debt. Well played Messiah, well played.

Is this a good example: 2003—Two years after being nominated to the Fifth Circuit, the eminently qualified Texas supreme court justice Priscilla Richman Owen encounters another step in the Democrats’ unprecedented campaign of obstruction against President Bush’s judicial nominees. The first of five Senate cloture votes on her nomination fails to obtain the necessary 60 votes for approval, as only two of 49 Democrats vote for cloture. Owen’s nomination is finally confirmed more than two years later (and more than four years from her initial nomination)—on May 25, 2005 No. I do not believe they will do anything close to what was practiced here and in many other cases involving Bush appointees.

Will any nomination be referred to as a liberal jurist?......Or will they be centrists?.......I think I know the answer......

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 30, 2009 -> 10:51 AM) It was bound to happen. You can give the guys who are keeping the company afloat the worst deal out of everyone involved. Its shortsighted, and only encourages the further contraction of lending, especially in dangerous sectors, such as automotive. Not only automotive, how about a financial company that tries to sell some corporates? With this as a precedent who in their right mind would invest? The gov't will just throw debt holders under the bus like they are doing here. Obama did seem a little perturbed at the presser today. If the Chrysler debt holders were offered a reasonable deal, there is no way they would have turned it down. But, by insulting them, the gov't gave them no choice. And with the bankruptcy law on their side they feel they have a strong case going forward. Really, they have nothing to lose compared to the current offer.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=...mp;pageId=96511 Why ask a question about this? Don't you dare question the Messiah or the Rat Emmanuel.

I gotta believe the bond holders in Chrysler will give the finger to the plan that is on the table. Why would secured debt holders, who would normally receive dollar for dollar in bankruptcy procedings, agree to a 10% share of the company?

QUOTE (BearSox @ Apr 28, 2009 -> 10:02 PM) The trib ain't all that conservative anymore... but I guess compared to the Sun Times, anything moderate looks extremely conservative. I know, should have put it in green.

QUOTE (bmags @ Apr 28, 2009 -> 02:25 PM) Perhaps you've missed the last 6 months of the Tribune. But nonetheless, more people read their Web site than subscribe to their paper, and it's on the home page, which gets more views than any other page of their site, so your point was moot. Damn liberal media! Giving things appropriate coverage! I'm not the one who said it was on the front page. Front page= newspaper. My point was not moot. If you stopped trying to be a smartass you would realize you were wrong.

QUOTE (jasonxctf @ Apr 28, 2009 -> 12:30 PM) this is true.. Specter was a Democrat until 1966. From Wikipedia... In 1965, Specter ran for District Attorney, on the Republican ticket as a registered Democrat. He handily beat incumbent Jim Crumlish, and subsequently changed his registration to Republican. Although a death penalty supporter, as prosecutor he questioned the fairness of the Pennsylvania death penalty statute in 1972[11]. He also defended Ira Einhorn(Earth Day founder,I believe) of murdering his fiance and stuffing her in a chest and putting her in a closet.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 28, 2009 -> 11:31 AM) They know that. It also gives them the opening to "give" people health insurance down the road. Kind of like savings jobs. GMAFB!!!

QUOTE (bmags @ Apr 28, 2009 -> 11:47 AM) Everything Balta said was my position. I still think he isn't 100% on EFCA, he's switched his mind once already. But, Dems bringing in moderates-conservatives into their party is better than getting rid of them. Why the republicans are continuing this race to the right is just really confusing. He just switched for the second time in his career. I believe he started out as a Dem.......... The other thing that I find really humorous is the only area where the gov't(Obama) does not want to regulate more is unions.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 28, 2009 -> 11:06 AM) Immediate reactions: 1. It's going to be a long, long, long time before Minnesota ever seats its 2nd Senator now. The MN Supreme Court doesn't hear the challenge until June 1, and after that fails, Coleman will undoubtedly launch a challenge in Federal Court, while the governor of MN will now continue to deny his certification signature until he is compelled to do so by a court. It could be 2010 before he's seated. 2. Specter was going to lose if he didn't do this. He is a much stronger candidate in the general election than in the Republican Primary. Either way the Dems were going to wind up taking that seat in 2010 barring a complete Republican surge. This is probably the most "Centrist" method. 3. I wonder what the Dems offered him to get him to switch, chairmanship wise. 4. While he says he'll still be a no vote on things like the EFCA and Cloture, which will make him frustrating, the difference now is that the Dems can officially whip him and whip him hard on things. Labor, for example, can decide how much support they are going to give him based on his votes, and that can make the difference between him winning or losing in the general. Pertaining to #4 he better start doing his mouth exercises. Open wide Arlen the unions are HUGE!!!!!!!!!!!!

QUOTE (bmags @ Apr 28, 2009 -> 11:44 AM) Front page of the trib newspaper now is saved for celebrity gossip, pictures of puppy dogs and sports. Red Eye has more news. Nice cover..

QUOTE (bmags @ Apr 28, 2009 -> 10:32 AM) It's on the front page right now...but probably SHOULD be better than the front page, you're right. I didn't see you deliver my paper this morning.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Apr 28, 2009 -> 10:02 AM) http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationw...0,7635967.story Okay, tribune.com is not the newspaper. Some people like to read a newspaper. My Tribune did not cover the story.

Somehow this did not make the news cycle in the conservative Chicago Tribune today.

QUOTE (ChiSox_Sonix @ Apr 28, 2009 -> 09:12 AM) If it causes them any discomfort it is. That's what maalox is for.

I would like to know if the gov't. will track how many people lose their private health coverage when the Obama abomination passes. I'll venture a guess and say 50 million within 10 years. And that is probably optimistic.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Apr 25, 2009 -> 02:44 PM) More than, say, Balta? Who is about to have a PhD in geology and could rattle off more about it in 10 minutes than all of my knowledge about it combined? Or other people like him? Or are they just corrupted by our "liberal education system" (whatever that means). I don't have a firm opinion on global warming (besides really obvious things that people are stupid if they don't believe, like the fact that greenhouse gases retain heat), but generally I find the arguments from the majority of the anti-global warming crowd to be laughable, and they have no room to talk about anyone. Like showing me data from a single year, or only going back to 2003 to show me the earth is cooling. lol. Ot that ice is growing on the east side of Antartica while all we hear is the Ross Ice Shelf is collapsing and the oceans are going to rise 6 metres. Please, both sides are guilty.