Down goes the Dow

__

well ok - I opened and closed the hedge a couple times, sure. It ain't working, that's for sure.

sometimes I use the sp 500, sometimes I use the vanguard total world index, others I use the vanguard total us stock market index

not sure what you think you might be missing.

You answered "no" to my original question. That confused me.

The question was about you being "hedged" a) in late June (when Klondike says he sold out) and b) in late August (when Klondike started the thread).

Sounds like the real answer is "yes", then?

__

the 'no' was from my only considering the most recent 3 day hedge.

I was indeed 'hedged' from June 20 to July 2 or so, and again out August 22 til sept 9, with some variance for different indices.

But keep in mind, this is literally play money - 3% of my total portfolio. It is just to keep me from mucking up my real portfolio.

agip wrote:

help me out - where does it say that Israel or any other country gets total access to NSA raw data?

What do you suppose the following phrases mean? How would you interpret them so that they do not mean Israel is getting all of the data?

"without first sifting it to remove information about US citizens", "..in its pre-minimized state", "is allowed to receive “raw Sigint", "the intelligence being shared would not be filtered"

The MOU is with Israel so of course it makes no comment on any foreign nation other than Israel. As far as we know from the Snowden trove, the USA has no MOU with any other nation to give access to all of this data.

Only Israel. Always Israel. Sick of it yet?

Hold onto your hast buy and holders.

Could be quite a roller coaster today.

If the Cruz crew keeps going, it may end up being more of a long steep slide than a roller coaster.

James Jones wrote:

agip wrote:

help me out - where does it say that Israel or any other country gets total access to NSA raw data?

What do you suppose the following phrases mean? How would you interpret them so that they do not mean Israel is getting all of the data?

"without first sifting it to remove information about US citizens", "..in its pre-minimized state", "is allowed to receive “raw Sigint", "the intelligence being shared would not be filtered"

The MOU is with Israel so of course it makes no comment on any foreign nation other than Israel. As far as we know from the Snowden trove, the USA has no MOU with any other nation to give access to all of this data.

Only Israel. Always Israel. Sick of it yet?

it doesn't say all. It just says 'sigint.' What you cited reads to me that the USA chooses some raw data to share with israel. Some data. Not all data.

and it's not just israel - it is the five eyes countries and israel, although that is not in the text you cited.

you are reading your own biases into the text you cited.

prob the best way to look at it is that the text you cite does not prove anything either way. It just doesn't have the information to suggest NSA hands 100% of its data to israel or just relevant info to the mideast.

But a thinking person will understand that there is zero chance the NSA gives over 100% of its raw data to israel.

[quote]agip wrote:

prob the best way to look at it is that the text you cite does not prove anything either way. It just doesn't have the information to suggest NSA hands 100% of its data to israel or just relevant info to the mideast.

No. Probably the best way is to read what it says and stop trying to spin it.

Raw Sigint includes, but is not limited to, unevaluated and unminimized transcripts, gists, facsimiles, telex, voice and Digital Network Intelligence metadata and content.”

This means all. Unedited. Unfiltered. No restraints. Including content.

I'm wondering why those Mossad agents who were known to have followed the 911 hi-jackers for months leading up to 911, did not share any of their raw data with the USA?

Cui bono?

if I say ' I will give you money' does that mean I will give you all my money?

If I say 'I will give you shoes' does that mean I will give you all my shoes?

Strawman.

agip wrote:

if I say ' I will give you money' does that mean I will give you all my money?

If I say 'I will give you shoes' does that mean I will give you all my shoes?

James Jones wrote:

Cui bono?

as soon as someone asks 'who benefits' and interprets world events through that prism, he loses all credibility.

Sort of like godwin's law of debate.

agip wrote:

James Jones wrote:

Cui bono?

as soon as someone asks 'who benefits' and interprets world events through that prism, he loses all credibility.

Sort of like godwin's law of debate.

Actually it is probably the best question to ask.

NYC Guy wrote:

agip wrote:

as soon as someone asks 'who benefits' and interprets world events through that prism, he loses all credibility.

Sort of like godwin's law of debate.

Actually it is probably the best question to ask.

Agreed. Seriously don't get what agip was thinking here. One should always ask the question, 'Who benefits?'.

Klondike5 wrote:

By the way, did you know that the NSA is giving all of our personal electronic communications to Israel?

This is the bone of contention in this argument, at least for me. You make it sound as if every communication from every American is being sent to the Israelis. But that's just not true. Yes, there are some Americans with Middle East ties whose data is being sent to Israel, but that's a relatively small number of people.

I have no problem with your opposition to this data being given to Israel, but don't exaggerate what is happening in order to further your agenda. It does not help your credibility.

K5 wrote:

Hold onto your hast buy and holders.

Could be quite a roller coaster today.

If the Cruz crew keeps going, it may end up being more of a long steep slide than a roller coaster.

Stocks are soaring upward at the moment.

Congress is reportedly near agreement on the debt ceiling. The sky's the limit for the Dow today. Hope you bought in yesterday, or last week.

Gonna Have to Agree wrote:

NYC Guy wrote:

Actually it is probably the best question to ask.

Agreed. Seriously don't get what agip was thinking here. One should always ask the question, 'Who benefits?'.

__

'who benefits' is too simple. Clearly, the main benefactor of the wars on Iraq has been Iran. They lost their main regional enemy, they can spread shiite power into Iraq, let them start building nuclear bombs - iran is the regional superpower, unopposed.

so... was Iran behind 9/11 and did the Iran lobby push for the Iraq invasion? Of course not. their rise was an unintended consequence of history.

Who benefitted from ww2? the US. did the US start ww2? of course not.

it's just too simple - history is a big frigging mess and trying to draw lines is hopeless.

agip wrote:

Gonna Have to Agree wrote:

Agreed. Seriously don't get what agip was thinking here. One should always ask the question, 'Who benefits?'.

__

'who benefits' is too simple. Clearly, the main benefactor of the wars on Iraq has been Iran. They lost their main regional enemy, they can spread shiite power into Iraq, let them start building nuclear bombs - iran is the regional superpower, unopposed.

so... was Iran behind 9/11 and did the Iran lobby push for the Iraq invasion? Of course not. their rise was an unintended consequence of history.

Who benefitted from ww2? the US. did the US start ww2? of course not.

it's just too simple - history is a big frigging mess and trying to draw lines is hopeless.

It sounds like you are assuming a simple thinking process and then criticizing it for being too simple.

Perhaps you assume to much.