Down goes the Dow

Lopi wrote:

Klondike5 wrote:

When I got out, I felt that the attack on Syria would have taken place by no later than August and that the inevitable disastrous consequences would have roiled the market by now.

I thought you got out in June. No one was talking of attacking Syria then.

You have an extremely short memory. This attack on Syria has been pushed for over a year in public (it was actually planned back in the 1990s)

Obama made his "red line" speech in August of 2012.

On 23 April 2013, the New York Times reported that the British and French governments had sent a confidential letter to the United Nations Secretary General, claiming that there was evidence that the Syrian government had used chemical weapons in Aleppo, Homs, and perhaps Damascus. Israel also claimed that the Syrian government had used chemical weapons on 19 March near Aleppo and Damascus.[45] By 25 April the U.S. intelligence assessment was that the Assad government had likely used chemical weapons – specifically sarin gas.

On 13 June, the United States announced that there is definitive proof that the Assad government has used limited amounts of chemical weapons on multiple occasions on rebel forces, killing 100 to 150 people.[57] Sarin was the agent used with no proof that the opposition had access to such weapons. Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes did not confirm whether this proof showed that Syria had crossed the "red line" established by President Obama by using chemical weapons. Rhodes stated that: "The president has said that the use of chemical weapons would change his calculus, and it has".

I don't see anything about an attack in any of that.

Lopi wrote:

I don't see anything about an attack in any of that.

Of course you don't.

Have you read "A Clean Break"?

Lopi wrote:

I don't see anything about an attack in any of that.

Ask yourself why then would Obama announce a Red Line that cannot be crossed in Syria?

Has he done that for any other countries?

Does it not strike you as odd that shortly after Obama declares this red line that we start getting reports that the Assad regime has used chemical weapons. Not a little too convenient for you?

Obama or Bush -- it does not matter when it comes to US policy in the Middle East. That is run by the "Lobby", which is actually more of an international organized crime syndicate engaged in bribery, blackmail, extortion, and murder

What "lobby"?

Lopi wrote:

What "lobby"?

You're kidding?

The Israel or Jewish Lobby

You think US foreign policy is controlled by a Jewish Lobby? Are you nuts?

Look wrote:

You think US foreign policy is controlled by a Jewish Lobby? Are you nuts?

Are you actually unaware of this?

Of course the Lobby runs US foreign policy in the Middle East.

I would have thought this was common knowledge by now.

Then you would be an idiot.

Look wrote:

Then you would be an idiot.

Less emotion and more thought.

Do a little investigation. Use google.

Here is some help.

Of course, you probably don't even know who AIPAC is.

The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) has weighed into the debate big time, unleashing hundreds of its activists on Capitol Hill, buttonholing congressmen and staffers alike. This is how it works according to a congressional staffer: "First come the phone calls from constituents who are AIPAC members. They know the Congressman and are nice and friendly and just tell him, or whichever staffer the constituent knows, just how important this vote is to him and his friends back in the district. Then the donors call. The folks who have hosted fundraisers. They are usually not only from the district but from New York or LA or Chicago. They repeat the message: this vote is very important. Contrary to what you might expect, they do not mention campaign money. They don’t have to. Because these callers are people who only know the Congressman through their checks, the threat not to write any more of them is implicit. Like the constituents, the donors are using AIPAC talking points which are simple and forceful. You can argue with them but they keep going back to the script… Then there are the AIPAC lobbyists, the professional staffers. They come in, with or without appointments. If the Congressman is in, they expect to see him immediately. If not, they will see a staffer. If they don’t like what they hear, they will keep coming back. They are very aggressive, no other lobby comes close. They expect to see the Member, not mere staff. Then there are the emails driven by the AIPAC website…and then the ‘Dear Colleague’ letters from Jewish House members saying how important the vote is for Israel and America. They also will buttonhole the Members on the House floor… And, truth be told, all the senior Jewish Members of the House are tight with AIPAC. Also, the two biggest AIPAC enforcers, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor and his Democratic counterpart, Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer, are fierce AIPAC partisans, and they make sure to seek out Members on the floor to tell them how they must vote. On anything related to Israel, they speak in one voice: AIPAC’s. Obviously, there is no counterpart to this on the antiwar side. No anti-AIPAC to speak of. AIPAC owns this issue. It gets what it wants."

AIPAC is one of thousands of lobbies in Washington. You're nuts if you think that one lobby is determining our foreign policy.

anyone else think that klondike5 should take his lumps and stop posting in this thread? live to fight another day.

I think this thread should stop talking about politics and keep to the stock market. Otherwise it will probably get deleted. Klondike certainly has, um, many other threads to work out his obsessions.

Oh man I can't wait to update this thread at the end of the month. and the month after that, etc.

[quote]agip wrote:

I think this thread should stop talking about politics and keep to the stock market.

Yes. Because politics has no impact on the market and should not play into our decisions.

Talk to me in three months. I am relatively confident that the "correction" will hit by then. Perhaps as soon as next week when the Fed makes its next announcement on 9/18 (I know, I know, we cannot talk about the ethnic/religious make-up of the Board of that august body).

If at year's end I have been proven mistaken, I will consider my next move.

Agip.

As an American, does it not bother you that the NSA is not only gathering all of our private emails, phone calls, tweets, etc. and storing them? Or that they are also handing all of this material to the Israeli Government?

And, if not, why not?

Does it not bother you that this bombshell from the Guardian yesterday is the top story worldwide but the American media has maintained silence on the topic?

If not, why not?

Klondike5 wrote:

(I know, I know, we cannot talk about the ethnic/religious make-up of the Board of that august body).

What does that have to do with anything?

BTW, if you stay out for the next three months, you'll miss the annual Christmas run up. It should be a good one this year.

I think I am done with fighting you on politics. What's the point? You can't argue with a conspiracy guy - I mean seriously - there is nothing that would change your mind, so what is the point?

I learned a little bit about the dollars moving around, which was good. I will keep working on that on my own, because I am interested in proving myself wrong. I'm going to e-mail about that 60% claim - a prof at Johns Hopkins who seems to write about this stuff might help. I got the Mearsheimer and Walt from the library and will try to sort out the true from the biased.

But I have no illusions you have any interest in proving yourself wrong - you are a classic one issue guy - only looking for facts that agree with your stance.

Ciao. Out.

Except for stock market stuff - that is my obsession, so I'll stay with that.

I take it you are unwilling to defend in writing the NSA's handing over all of our private communications to a foreign nation.

I am surprised. I thought you were going to take the stance that this is not happening, contrary to all of the information that was leaked.

You know. Like you do with the sources of funding for the Dem party.