QE is creating a speculative stock bubble.

IBMoron: I never said those points weren't true. You deflect again (no shock).

I said, and say again, the world is never as simple as people like you want it to be. And the motives of people like O.N. are never as simple. Partial truths may still be "true", just not complete--and lies of omission are often the most damning.

For example, you seem so very eager to argue in one post that we were steadfast supporting Iraq against Iran, but in the next you say we wanted to get friendly with Iran. Yet you see no issue with the contradiction. I say again (maybe if I repeat the basic truth often enough it might sink into your mind): the world of politics--especially covert politics--is very, very convoluted. To believe any piece of information as 100% true, 100% false, or 100% of the story is the mark of a fool, a zealot, or an armature. In your case, likely all three. Originally Posted by Old-T

Go screw yourself and suck on your used prophylactic afterwards, Old-Twerp: the Prophylactic Man. You made multiple ignorant assertions that proved to be lies, Old-Twerp: the Prophylactic Man, and now you disingenuously try to hide behind the claim that you weren't arguing precisely the points you were refuted on, Old-Twerp: the Prophylactic Man.

Every post you make you sink deeper into the muck.

My original post was: "You should listen to your own words of wisdom. Your revisionist interpretation of North's little embarrassment and his motives is laughable."

You claim "You made multiple ignorant assertions that proved to be lies" What of my statement is a lie? Back up your assertion, lying pathetic jackass. Those were and are my opinions based upon what I know of you and what I know of O.N. You are the most bellicose asshole on this entire board. Others may be more evil, loathsome, or bigoted, but no one else matches your volume of lies--most of which are knowing lies on your part.

My only point has been that YOU are an ignorant buffoon on this topic and the world of politics is far more complex than your brain can comprehend. Show me where any of that is a lie.

You attack what I said, and when you are--as always--shown to be nothing more than a blow-hard you regress to making non-sequitors and self-proclaiming victory. Your revisionist, partial-truth comments praising O.N. and his noble motives was laughable then and continues to be now. The ONLY thing you can do to defend your argument is so eloquently rant "Go screw yourself and suck on your used prophylactic afterwards", as if the more filthy your comments the more true they must be. That truly is the sign of a sick, sick person--and I have no doubt that is an accurate description of you.

For a third time I ask where YOU were back as that was unfolding. I know EXACTLY where I was when the US media made Ollie North a household word. I knew North long before that. You are a pompous blowhard who hasn't won an argument on here in years (except in your own mind of course, where you are clearly undefeated).

I know you don't have the ability or the will to answer it, but I'll ask again, what part of "You should listen to your own words of wisdom. Your revisionist interpretation of North's little embarrassment and his motives is laughable." do you think you have shown to be "ignorant assertions that proved to be lies" as you now claim.

Good debating with you again, IBMoron. Actually it wasn't you don't have the emotional stability to actually debate anything, but as always you are good for a laugh in a pathos filled way.

Every post you make you sink deeper into the muck.

My original post was: "You should listen to your own words of wisdom. Your revisionist interpretation of North's little embarrassment and his motives is laughable."

You claim "You made multiple ignorant assertions that proved to be lies" What of my statement is a lie? Back up your assertion, lying pathetic jackass. Those were and are my opinions based upon what I know of you and what I know of O.N. You are the most bellicose asshole on this entire board. Others may be more evil, loathsome, or bigoted, but no one else matches your volume of lies--most of which are knowing lies on your part.

My only point has been that YOU are an ignorant buffoon on this topic and the world of politics is far more complex than your brain can comprehend. Show me where any of that is a lie.

You attack what I said, and when you are--as always--shown to be nothing more than a blow-hard you regress to making non-sequitors and self-proclaiming victory. Your revisionist, partial-truth comments praising O.N. and his noble motives was laughable then and continues to be now. The ONLY thing you can do to defend your argument is so eloquently rant "Go screw yourself and suck on your used prophylactic afterwards", as if the more filthy your comments the more true they must be. That truly is the sign of a sick, sick person--and I have no doubt that is an accurate description of you.

For a third time I ask where YOU were back as that was unfolding. I know EXACTLY where I was when the US media made Ollie North a household word. I knew North long before that. You are a pompous blowhard who hasn't won an argument on here in years (except in your own mind of course, where you are clearly undefeated).

I know you don't have the ability or the will to answer it, but I'll ask again, what part of "You should listen to your own words of wisdom. Your revisionist interpretation of North's little embarrassment and his motives is laughable." do you think you have shown to be "ignorant assertions that proved to be lies" as you now claim.

Good debating with you again, IBMoron. Actually it wasn't you don't have the emotional stability to actually debate anything, but as always you are good for a laugh in a pathos filled way. Originally Posted by Old-T

What about that post was proved to be "revisionist," Old-Twerp: the Prophylactic Man? When the facts proving that it wasn't "revisionism," Old-Twerp: the Prophylactic Man, were shoved up your ass sideways and twisted, you began squirming like the lib-retarded, lying, little worm you are, Old-Twerp: the Prophylactic Man. There was nothing about that post you ignorantly and lyingly challenged that was "revisionism," and you had your ignorant, lying ass handed to you on a platinum platter, Old-Twerp: the Prophylactic Man! Go screw yourself, Old-Twerp: the Prophylactic Man, and suck on your soiled prophylactic afterwards, Old-Twerp: the Prophylactic Man.

What about that post was proved to be "revisionist," Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Are you truly that illiterate, or that brain dead? Apparently you are.

What was revisionist is tied up with the "rest of the story". The point I have made as clearly and simply as I can--but is still too difficult for you to comprehend though I have pointed it out to you repeatedly.

WHAT YOU HOLD AS TRUE IS JUST PART OF THE REALITY.

That is why parts of the 24 Feb 1984 memo are redacted--do you think there is actually blank space beneath those gaps? Do you really believe the gaps on the Nixon tapes were really just dead air? The 24 Feb 1984 memo is ONE PIECE, not the entirety. That's why I highlighted "....and therefore [they] do not push analytically beneath the surface."

They are all shouting out to you that there is more to the story, and much more to O.N.

But you go ahead and believe whatever fairy tale you wish to believe. How odd it is for you to disbelieve stories you want to disbelieve, but swallow whole the stories you wish were true.

The world of covert politics is not as simple as you would like it to be. It's not a bedtime story where the heroes are 100% pure good guys.

Are you truly that illiterate, or that brain dead? Apparently you are.

What was revisionist is tied up with the "rest of the story". The point I have made as clearly and simply as I can--but is still too difficult for you to comprehend though I have pointed it out to you repeatedly.

WHAT YOU HOLD AS TRUE IS JUST PART OF THE REALITY.

That is why parts of the 24 Feb 1984 memo are redacted--do you think there is actually blank space beneath those gaps? Do you really believe the gaps on the Nixon tapes were really just dead air? The 24 Feb 1984 memo is ONE PIECE, not the entirety. That's why I highlighted "....and therefore [they] do not push analytically beneath the surface."

They are all shouting out to you that there is more to the story, and much more to O.N.

But you go ahead and believe whatever fairy tale you wish to believe. How odd it is for you to disbelieve stories you want to disbelieve, but swallow whole the stories you wish were true.

The world of covert politics is not as simple as you would like it to be. It's not a bedtime story where the heroes are 100% pure good guys. Originally Posted by Old-T

You lie, Old-Twerp: the Prophylactic Man! There was nothing "revisionist" about the post you challenged, Old-Twerp: the Prophylactic Man.

THE ARMS TRANSFERS TO IRAN

Two persistent concerns lay behind U.S. participation in arms transfers to Iran.

First, the U.S. Government anxiously sought the release of seven U.S. citizens abducted in Beirut, Lebanon, in seven separate incidents between March 7, 1984, and June 9, 1985. One of those abducted was William Buckley, C.I.A. station chief in Beirut, seized on March 16, 1984. Available intelligence suggested that most, if not all, of the Americans were held hostage by members of Hezbollah, a fundamentalist Shiite terrorist group with links to the regime of the Ayatollah Khomeini.
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/PS157...20EXCERPTS.htm


You truly are a dumb fuck, Old-Twerp: the Prophylactic Man.

You truly are beyond hope.

No, using the biggest font doesn't make you right--or less obnoxious.

Yes, your post is revisionist for all the reasons I clearly stated.

If you wish to remain blisfully stupid--as it seems you do--go right ahead.

Moron

You truly are beyond hope.

No, using the biggest font doesn't make you right--or less obnoxious.

Yes, your post is revisionist for all the reasons I clearly stated.

If you wish to remain blisfully stupid--as it seems you do--go right ahead.

Moron Originally Posted by Old-T

The only "revisionism" here is you trying to distance yourself from your stupid and ignorant initial POV, Old-Twerp: the Prophylactic Man. You truly are a dumb fuck, Old-Twerp: the Prophylactic Man, and the large font was employed for your benefit, Old-Twerp: the Prophylactic Man, to simulate what you 2nd graders use when you read, Old-Twerp: the Prophylactic Man.

Carter righted the ship in 1979. Yes his first Fed Chairman was a bust. But Reagan had very little to do with the recovery. You dumb fuc (sic), turning around an economy as large as ours is like turning around the Queen Mary , not a fucking motorcycle. WTF I said was that Reagan benefited from Carter's appointment you dumb muther (sic) fucker.


http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-dru...reagans-legacy

In 1979, Jimmy Carter appointed Paul Volcker chairman of the Federal Reserve. Inflation was running at about 12 percent when he took office, and Volcker immediately slammed on the monetary brakes in order to bring it down. Whether he was targeting interest rates or monetary aggregates remains a bit murky, but it hardly matters. In the end, he engineered one minor recession in 1980, and when that didn't do the trick, he tightened Fed policy even more and threw the economy into a second recession—this one extraordinarily deep and painful—which he maintained until 1982. When he let up, the economy recovered. Reagan had very little to do with it.
Originally Posted by WTF

Wow. You are the worst apologist for Jimmy Carter I ever met. Carter nearly tripled inflation, but you say all is forgiven because he then "righted the ship in 1979" by appointing Volker? Gee, if I start a fire in your neighborhood, would you forget about the arson part and tell everyone I was a hero for calling the firefighters to put it out? One of the reasons it took Volker 3 years to wring inflation out of the economy is because Carter spent 3 years pumping it up.

Why are you libtards so obsessed with denying Reagan's economic record anyway? If a Democrat had the same record he would be in the libtard pantheon. Conservatives don't deny Clinton's economic record. Many of them give him credit for holding down federal spending and are critical of GBW for not doing the same. But you libtards are too pathologically insecure to admit the obvious when it comes to a failure like Jimmy Carter or to give any credit to Reagan for the way the economy prospered on his watch.

Wow. You are the worst apologist for Jimmy Carter I ever met. Carter nearly tripled inflation, but you say all is forgiven because he then "righted the ship in 1979" by appointing Volker? Gee, if I start a fire in your neighborhood, would you forget about the arson part and tell everyone I was a hero for calling the firefighters to put it out? One of the reasons it took Volker 3 years to wring inflation out of the economy is because Carter spent 3 years pumping it up.

Why are you libtards so obsessed with denying Reagan's economic record anyway? If a Democrat had the same record he would be in the libtard pantheon. Conservatives don't deny Clinton's economic record. Many of them give him credit for holding down federal spending and are critical of GBW for not doing the same. But you libtards are too pathologically insecure to admit the obvious when it comes to a failure like Jimmy Carter or to give any credit to Reagan for the way the economy prospered on his watch. Originally Posted by lustylad

poor analogy about Carter... why are republicans still refusing to accept the fact Reagan raised the debt 189% and raised taxes 7 times after he threw the morons a tax cut bone to keep their simple little minds busy?

same as starting a fire and calling the fire department isn't it ?

sure it is.

[QUOTE=lustylad;1054671203]Wow. You are the worst apologist for Jimmy Carter I ever met. Carter nearly tripled inflation, but you say all is forgiven because he then "righted the ship in 1979" by appointing Volker? Gee, if I start a fire in your neighborhood, would you forget about the arson part and tell everyone I was a hero for calling the firefighters to put it out? One of the reasons it took Volker 3 years to wring inflation out of the economy is because Carter spent 3 years pumping it up.

Why are you libtards so obsessed with denying Reagan's economic record /QUOTE]I said Reagan benefited from the Volcker appointment. What fucking part of that don't you understand? I also said Reagan sold arms to Iran. I then asked you if we should have backed Saddam instead of overthrowing him.a. I do think Reagan has gotten way more credit than he deserves and Carter has gotten way more blame. Just like Clinton has gotten way more credit than he deserves and Bush Sr to much blame. Bush Jr seems well deserving of his blame. We give the president to much credit and blame for what amounts to cycles and things out of their control.

There are two articles there by different authors, BJ, neither of whom you can substantively refute. They both say the same thing: U.S. investors are being manipulated into making risky investments because of the monetary policy adopted by the Fed, BJ. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Q.E. has been a factor with the Stock index going up. Institutional traders and the fund managers generally don't buy stocks in companies that post negative earnings every quarter. Companies are making as much money now as they ever have, if not from increased sales then from decreasing costs and expense. Q.E. will not continue indefinitely. Q.E. will end at some point. Q.E. was needed to offset the over trillion dollar lost that Wall street incurred by trading unregulated securities and loseing all of their money in the Bush years. See AIG, Lehman Brothers, Freedie Mac, Fannie Mae, Merill Lynch, Morgan Stanly, Bear Stearns, Chase Bank, City Group, BOA, Wells Fargo and all the other big banks. Bush left a mess for Obama to clean up. The economy is improving. Unemployment rate dropped to 7.0%, $200,000 jobs were added last month. These jobs were across all income levels too, not just low paying jobs. Obama is cleaning up the mess that Bush and Cheney left behind.

Q.E. has been a factor with the Stock index going up. Institutional traders and the fund managers generally don't buy stocks in companies that post negative earnings every quarter. Companies are making as much money now as they ever have, if not from increased sales then from decreasing costs and expense. Q.E. will not continue indefinitely. Q.E. will end at some point. Q.E. was needed to offset the over trillion dollar lost that Wall street incurred by trading unregulated securities and loseing all of their money in the Bush years. See AIG, Lehman Brothers, Freedie Mac, Fannie Mae, Merill Lynch, Morgan Stanly, Bear Stearns, Chase Bank, City Group, BOA, Wells Fargo and all the other big banks. Bush left a mess for Obama to clean up. The economy is improving. Unemployment rate dropped to 7.0%, $200,000 jobs were added last month. These jobs were across all income levels too, not just low paying jobs. Obama is cleaning up the mess that Bush and Cheney left behind. Originally Posted by flghtr65

A "mess" created by the financial time-bomb left by Slick Willie the Perjuring Sexual Predator.

Q.E. has been a factor with the Stock index going up. Institutional traders and the fund managers generally don't buy stocks in companies that post negative earnings every quarter. Companies are making as much money now as they ever have, if not from increased sales then from decreasing costs and expense. Q.E. will not continue indefinitely. Q.E. will end at some point. Q.E. was needed to offset the over trillion dollar lost that Wall street incurred by trading unregulated securities and loseing all of their money in the Bush years. See AIG, Lehman Brothers, Freedie Mac, Fannie Mae, Merill Lynch, Morgan Stanly, Bear Stearns, Chase Bank, City Group, BOA, Wells Fargo and all the other big banks. Bush left a mess for Obama to clean up. The economy is improving. Unemployment rate dropped to 7.0%, $200,000 jobs were added last month. These jobs were across all income levels too, not just low paying jobs. Obama is cleaning up the mess that Bush and Cheney left behind. Originally Posted by flghtr65

Astro-turf this... http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-1...are-inevitable

Simply put, a financial crisis doesn’t happen accidentally, but follows after a prolonged period of excesses (expansionary monetary policies and/or fiscal policies leading to excessive credit growth and excessive speculation). The problem lies in timing the onset of the crisis. Usually, as was the case in Asia in the 1990s, macroeconomic conditions deteriorate long before the onset of the crisis. However, expansionary monetary policies and excessive debt growth can extend the life of the business expansion for a very long time.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-1...are-inevitable

The best yardstick to judge whether the stock market is in a bubble or not is the average P/E ratio for the S&P 500. Right now it's around 15x using 12-month forward earnings. That compares with 25x back in 2000 and 11x in 2008.

http://etfdailynews.com/2013/12/04/d...ly-overvalued/

The best yardstick to judge whether the stock market is in a bubble or not is the average P/E ratio for the S&P 500. Right now it's around 15x using 12-month forward earnings. That compares with 25x back in 2000 and 11x in 2008.

http://etfdailynews.com/2013/12/04/d...ly-overvalued/ Originally Posted by lustylad

LL, nice post, but I want to alert you that Ysswipe has now hijacked your avatar. He's trying to impersonate someone with intelligence. Just an FYI.