Sarah Palin Readies Bus Tour Amid 2012 Speculation


Well-Known Member
Seriously, do you start to have actual vision problems when you see something factual that doesn't fit your fantasy world? That's pretty amazing. It's like your eyes and brain suffer a tantrum, you go into full denial of reality, an then there's just this "huuuuurrrrrrrr duuuurrrrrrr....I'll try trolling again....maybe it'll work this time".
OK, the market (if you can even call it that in its current state) is not the economy. The reality is our outlook is piss-poor.

If your metric are so wonderful on a broad scale reflecting a recovery why is anyone even worried? It's a simple question.

Explain it to me in detail.


Well-Known Member
Here you go... from Obama's chief of staff
Daley can’t defend Obama’s ‘indefensible’ economic policies Fri Jun 17, 1:21 pm ET

White House Chief of Staff Bill Daley took heat from business executives Thursday for the Obama administration’s regulatory expansions. Daley also said he didn’t have any good answers for some of what President Obama is doing and expressed frustration about the “bureaucratic stuff that’s hard to defend.”

“Sometimes you can’t defend the indefensible,” Daley said at a National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) meeting.

Daley couldn’t answer basic questions and continually faced criticism from the executives in the room. The business leaders even applauded each other’s criticism of the administration. “At one point, the room erupted in applause when Massachusetts utility executive Doug Starrett, his voice shaking with emotion, accused the administration of blocking construction on one of his facilities to protect fish, saying government ‘throws sand into the gears of progress,’” wrote Peter Wallsten and Jia Lynn Yang in the Washington Post.

Americans for Limited Government Communications Director and former Labor Department Public Affairs Chief of Staff Rick Manning told The Daily Caller that Daley’s inability to defend Obama’s regulations is an indication that the administration’s plans aren’t working. Manning also points out that Daley’s meeting may have large political implications.

“Business community to William Daley, your Jedi tricks don’t work on us,”.....

Obama indefensible policies

Not a jedi are you.


New Member
You're simply insane. You swallow like a useful idiot does.

This coming from the guy who can't seem to focus on the facts in front of his face because they don't agree with his fantasy. That is insane useful idiocy.

Obama slammed at liberal conference

Seems your behind the times again. Even your people are waking up (not you though)

As the article says some liberal groups want Obama to do more about gay rights and withdraw from Afghanistan. This is irrelevant to the current discussion and a transparent attempt by you to change the subject when you're wrong.

meanwhile...across town. -- who won the republican debate? - The TeaParty

I don't remember the Tea Party being there but who won [depends on who you ask](

I'd go with Ron Paul winning. Yes, he founded the Tea Party but then Fox stole it from him and his supporters aren't really behind it anymore.

Most certainly the influences opf presidential policies can have a major influence prices. The more dangerous a president is the more influence the policies have.

So your saying Bush was dangerous. I'll agree with that.

This president is a fucktard and has everyone pissed and scared. So yeah, obama seems to be having a negitive effect despite all the artificial counter measures he has taken. He's a commie who hates America, like you, what do you expect.

Huurrrrrr......duuurrrrrr....commies. Lulz.

Once again showing complete ignorance of what communism is. You're like a cartoon. :laugh:

Can you show me where the numbers come from?

Dude, I know you have trouble seeing this stuff but it's right in the bottom corner.

But can you show me the budgets of Pelosi's 110th congress. (the 111th under Pelosi too, ...while your at it -- FY2008-2011)

I'd imagine you can find that stuff on your own. This one is interesting though. Shows how that surplus got killed.


Seems bush policies provided the intel lead to the kill.

Lie. Bush's policy was to not find him. See his quotes.


Well-Known Member
Yeah, If I were you I'd be squirming too if i saw all my commie ways going down flames.

I tire of your living in the past as if that might help us today, it wont. Come up to present time and deal with whats going on in the real world.

This jumps out at me...

I'd go with Ron Paul winning. Yes, he founded the Tea Party but then Fox stole it from him and his supporters aren't really behind it anymore.
Not along ago you claimed some white supremacist founded the tea party, you also claimed Dick Army founded the tea party. Seems you also said the Koch bros are the Tea Party. You're all over the board again.

Coming from the guy who was certain Palin was responsible for the shooting-in-the-face of a dim congresswoman I shouldn't really be surprised.

I created a video about a Tea Party uprising before the Tea Party took to the stage. maybe I invented the Tea Party. lolololol

I guess you really don't get the grass roots of the Tea Party, or much anything not spoon-fed to you, all.

Enjoy your lifes failures spike.


New Member
Yeah, If I were you I'd be squirming too if i saw all my commie ways going down flames.

Huuurrrrrrrrr.......duurrrrrrr....commie. LOL.

I'll take that as you have nothing to counter the facts and have nothing left but idiotic trolling.

Not along ago you claimed some white supremacist founded the tea party, you also claimed Dick Army founded the tea party. Seems you also said the Koch bros are the Tea Party.

Hey, predictably you thought you'd try some straw men when you got flogged in the discussion. Reality sucks for you huh?


Well-Known Member
spike. I've given you ample data that is current and honest. If you cannot weave the facts together and realize the truth of the matter, that Obama economic policies are a failure, it's not my fault.

We'll just wait for 2012 and then you can again be imperviously happy about the results.

Here, have a cookie and you'll feel right as rain....



New Member
Obama economic policies are a failure

What we can clearly see here is that Bush's economic policies were a failure and Obama's have been a drastic improvement. You can hide from the facts all you want but they are so obvious it makes you look incredibly ridiculous to keep ignoring them.





Well-Known Member
Look, your not being honest with yourself spike, you're not showing what you think you are. The stock market does not reflect economy, until it crashes.

What happened to "unemployment won't go over 8%." Now at 9.1% officially.???

Why did the unemployment number rise again last month? (even with 60,000 people being employed by just one company)

Fact is many economist are predicting unemployment to get much worse despite what the Obamatrons are feeding you. This administration has been desperately and artificially using QE2 to stay above 12000 with the market, its not working anymore and it's slipping away. With QE2 about to end we're looking at going into a full-blown depression, if they deploy QE3 we're looking at a hyperinflation depression.

Let me help you to understand. You need to read this entire article.

Since the market low on March 9, 2009, which also roughly coincided with the start of quantitative easing (QE), the NASDAQ Composite has had four corrections that exceed -8% (dates shown are the NASDAQ low for that correction):
  • February 5, 2010 -9.7%
  • July 1, 2010 -18.6%
  • March 16, 2011 -8.3%
  • June 10, 2011 -8.4%
The July 2, 2010 correction was due to the end of QE1, thus exceeded -10%. The corrections of February 5, 2010 and March 16, 2011 ended before the market had a chance to pierce -10% correction levels.
Instead, the market found its footing when all looked ugly, and the QE-motivated bull market resumed.

Based on the recent price/volume action of the major indices and leading stocks, it could be argued that a bounce that occurs at these oversold levels could be met with more selling.

The market is forward looking and is currently casting ia negative vote that the mutant version of QE2 after June 30, 2011 will be much less effective at propping up the market.

The mutant version of QE2 will take the form of reinvested proceeds and capital gains from maturing securities over a period of perhaps 3 to 6 months. Then after this period has ended, there will then be an "organic" shrinkage of the Fed's balance sheet.

The Fed would ideally like to see the market find its footing during this 3 to 6 month phase of mutant QE2. It seems though as if the market is already losing its footing before this mutant form has a chance to start because the markets are typically looking ahead by 6 to 9 months.

This does not bode well for the Fed.

The Fed naturally does not want to see all of its "hard work" undone by a deep correction in the stock market, so it could try to step in with a full measure of quantitative easing (QE3) should market conditions warrant.
In the meantime, the market could correct at least as much as it did (-18.6%) from April 26-July 1, 2010 around the time QE1 ended.

The Market Direction Model at is calculating all of this as it adjusts its rules to account for the material change in quantitative easing.

Since the stock market tends to lead the economy, not the other way around, the Fed is hoping the economy will gain traction from the bull market that began March 2009.

However, pertinent economic figures including the latest figures on unemployment shows the Fed's attempt to jump start the economy has yet to produce a spark.

This begs the question as to whether QE3 would harm the economy more than help. So far QEs have not had the positive impact they should, and they also carry the long term negative impact of devaluation of the dollar, with the longer term potential of unmooring the dollar's status as the world's reserve currency.

Should this unmooring occur in the years ahead, this would come as no surprise as all reserve currencies eventually meet with a tragic end.
The Fed's IDEAL scenario: The stock market maintains traction after QE2 ends, the economy gains traction, inflation rises, and the Fed starts its rate hike cycle (Fed fund futures are pricing in a probably rate hike in early 2012).

The early part of rate hike cycles tend to be bullish as they are a sign the economy is doing better. Since rates have been kept artificially low for a prolonged period, the Fed would have large headroom to hike rates while the economy soft lands, gains traction, and moves forward well into 2012-2013.

The Fed's potential REALITY: The stock market continues to falter even before QE2 ends, the economy continues to show little sign of life, the dollar continues to devalue as inflation continues to rise, forcing the US into a stagflationary or hyperinflationary environment.

The Fed tends to be late to the game as it was late to lower rates in 2001, late to lower rates in 2007, and will probably be late to hike rates to contain inflation in 2012. Once unleashed, inflation tends to be hard to contain.
In the long run, continued global monetization of debt by the debtor nations should keep precious metals a sound long term investment.

In the short run, a possible slowdown in China and continued troubles in Europe may help prop the dollar as it is still the world's reserve currency and thus still represents a flight to safety. This could put pressure on precious metals in the short-term.

Currently, the the Market Direction model maintains its cash signal. The model will switch to a sell signal if it detects enough selling pressure weighed against the possibility of a sharp bounce due to oversold conditions.

Likewise, the model will switch to a buy signal if it detects enough legitimate buying pressure (as opposed to a technical short-lived bounce) that is indicative of a sustained rally.

Note, the model on rare occasions will delay the issuing of buy and sell signals such as it did after its highly profitable sell signal on April 28, 2010. This was a period after the flash crash, motivated by the end of QE1, when volatility levels spiked.

Indeed, the safety of the sidelines can, in volatile, trendless periods of uncertainty, be the best course of action.

This was last shown by the model's ability to stay out of the market for the most part from May to July 2010, then resume with a profitable sell signal on August 11, 2010 and a profitable buy signal on September 1, 2010.
And it is good to know that even if the model is in cash while the market moves lower, the model outperforms the general averages on a relative basis. Being in cash during the sharp corrections that took place in the 1990s and 2000s brought much peace of mind.

One does not need to be in the action of the market all the time.

Brief discussion of prior signals issued by the Market Direction Model (MDM):

The quantitative easing fakeout on May 31 pushed the model into a cash signal while we noticed other models went to a buy signal. MDM went to cash due to quantitative easing which has been prevalent. The market then promptly sold off the next day. The model stayed in cash instead of moving to a buy signal on May 31 because:
  1. The market has been choppy and trendless for the most part of 2011 while QE remains in effect, thus sell signals have not resulted in big profits with May 2010 being the exception when QE1 ended. Indeed, major averages such as the NASDAQ Composite have not even corrected -10% (outside of May 2010) since QE began in March 2009.
  2. The model went to a sell signal on May 5, which would have remained a sell without the QE fake-out on May 31. The market then immediately had a big down day on June 1. The model has a rule where it would switch to sell signal once the low of June 1 is broken which occurred on June 2. However, in this QE environment, there is an overriding rule which says if the market is down further than it's original sell signal on May 5, a new sell signal here carries that much more QE risk, thus it is best to remain in cash. That said, given the recent new data, the model's QE-based rules will account for a diminished capacity for QE to prop the market.
As you can see, there are subtleties to the rules which enable the model to navigate through a trendless QE-motivated environment which has created a most challenging environment for timing models this year. What is also nice is that the rules have kept the model in longer on buy and cash signals, and quicker to exit sell signals.

Patience is the hardest discipline to practice as even the most seasoned traders often want to be in the action. In baseball, wait for the right pitch. In poker, wait for the right hand.

Townhall Finance
You're believing the smoke and mirrors son, smoke and mirrors.


Just for fun. Watch what happens to the market when the dollar reverses course. Fun times!

But if you want comparisons, lets compare...


I know you like polls too. Let me give you one to look at.
(CNN) – President Barack Obama's overall approval rating has dropped below 50 percent as a growing number of Americans worry that the U.S. is likely to slip into another Great Depression within the next 12 months, according to a new national poll. -- June 8th, 2011 CNN

It's a shame you can't see the forest thru the trees.

This is the dims economy tanking, just as planned. Even the top-dim acknowledges that now. Debbie 'Downer' Wasserman Schultz has claimed full credit for the miserable decline we're in.

I may have as well written this entire post in dutch, you wont understand any of it anyway. Have another blissful day spike.


Well-Known Member
What we can clearly see here is that Bush's economic policies were a failure and Obama's have been a drastic improvement. You can hide from the facts all you want but they are so obvious it makes you look incredibly ridiculous to keep ignoring them.

<images cut to save space>
Agreed. However acknowledging the positive steps toward the economy, environment or freedoms for citizens attributed in any part to the opposing party's incumbent leadership does not serve your own party in an election year. Acknowledgment will never occur and I don't believe it would even if this were not an election year. I have even heard outright lies from Republican candidates during their campaigns. Shocking, I know. People will believe what they want to believe as long as they never look at both sides with skepticism and without prejudice. (Note: this statement is not insinuating racial prejudice is a factor.)

I once read, with astonishment, that slaves in the U.S. used to quarrel and fight over who had the best master. They attributed their master's character and attributes to themselves. Many people do the same thing with regard to political leadership. They hitch their wagon and close their eyes, defending their chosen horse to the last breath. I suspect those same people will quote this post, highlight certain parts of it and twist it to their own means. It's quite predictable and one of the reasons I have been away from this board for so long, and will likely not frequent it much in the future. It had become... boring and obtuse, and a quick review of the board shows others felt the same way. There's not as much traffic here as there used to be. As I predicted would occur, too much freedom to the trolls pushed members away.

People often follow leaders blindly without checking the facts. They want to believe they have chosen correctly because it means they are winners without ever running for a political position themselves. Both the current and past presidents have done good for this country in some way (though admittedly Bush did far more harm to freedom, economy and environment), even though they were on different sides of the political fence. I will also add that they have both done wrong as well.

Obama should have stopped the bailouts after Bush's no-strings-attached bailout of the banks, but he added another. I will attribute President Obama to adding conditions to his bailouts but I feel that the banks and auto companies should have all perished under their risks. This would have allowed smaller, but stronger businesses in both fields to rise up and fill the void.

Some people will never see clearly the facts before them and all the debating until the end of the world will do no good for them or you. You're pissing in the wind, dear Spike. :hug:
OH, and Research Monkey, don't bother... you joined my ignore list with the other ugly troll, Cerese. I didn't find you had much intelligence to add to the debate of this or other threads so this will keep the page free of clutter. Nothing personal. It's just I don't have the kind of time I used to have to wade through it all. If I want an opposing view to make an informed decision, free from troll-speak, I'll do as I always do, I'll check the political facts from legitimate websites.


Well-Known Member

You've been around long enough to know.

If you look at the page w/out logging in...........


Jus' sayin'........