 |
Smart Investment - mexicomike.ca
Canadian Junior Gold and Silver Companies
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Dsquare
Joined: 19 Jun 2004
Posts: 7867
|
 Posted: Thu Nov 26, 2009 3:45 am Post subject: Not Obama's zombies |
 |
|
|
Who Will Protest Obama’s War?
| Quote: | All in all, we face a depressing prospect: the Left brain-dead with Obama idolatry, the Right neoconized beyond redemption – and no one left to oppose a futile, draining, and horrifically destructive conflict, a war we cannot afford and which directly contravenes our real interests as a nation.
No one, that is, except a clear majority of the American people, who, according to polls, think the battle for Afghanistan is not worth it. Here is a clear instance in which ordinary, everyday Americans are radically out of sync with partisan activists of both the Right and the Left – thus creating a huge opening for libertarians, particularly the campus arm of the movement..
The premier libertarian youth organization, Young Americans for Liberty (YAL), is the fastest-growing political group on campus, these days, and no task would suit them better than assuming the leadership of the moribund, leftist-dominated antiwar movement. As Obama’s zombie-like cult follows him down the road to war – a war on a scale the much-reviled Bush administration never dared attempt – YAL can fill the vacuum, swell its own ranks, and, more importantly, dramatize the moral and political bankruptcy of the current administration, while drawing a clear and very dramatic line of demarcation between libertarians and Sean Hannity-type conservatives..
I have my issues with the organized libertarian movement, such as it is, and I have never endorsed any organization. YAL, however, is a different story: born out of the surge in libertarian activism generated by the Ron Paul campaign, it exemplifies the same staunch anti-imperialism married to (and derived from) a hard-core libertarian economic perspective. What I love about Rep. Paul is his obvious delight in mixing in denunciations of Obama’s domestic boondoggles with his informed and trenchant opposition to our global empire-building project. |
http://original.antiwar.com/ju.....bamas-war/
_________________
If We Had Some Global Warming
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJUFTm6cJXM
Hide the Decline
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMqc7PCJ-nc |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Dsquare
Joined: 19 Jun 2004
Posts: 7867
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dsquare
Joined: 19 Jun 2004
Posts: 7867
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dsquare
Joined: 19 Jun 2004
Posts: 7867
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 24, 2009 1:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
60 min chart. Assuming a blow-off terminal c wave in the diametric-x-flat count for e, likely only in wave iii and the ii-iv line is yet to form. Wave i looks like it could be a complex, elongated flat-x-diametric, and wave ii, a double 3.
_________________
If We Had Some Global Warming
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJUFTm6cJXM
Hide the Decline
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMqc7PCJ-nc |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dsquare
Joined: 19 Jun 2004
Posts: 7867
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 24, 2009 12:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
Looking to the daily chart for inspiration. Appears to me gold wants to blow-off. Looking at a count for wave e that allows a blow-off in the HUI within Neely's rules, a complex wave (diametric-x-flat) with a blow-off c wave makes sense. The maximum for this count is likely close to 61.8% of the 1st phase added to the 1st phase. Wave e's of expanding triangles make good blow-off waves and can be as much as 2.618x the size of wave a or c. Still, wouldn't expect e to be much larger than 3x wave d. With lower resolution (daily chart) one might assume that the entire c wave here is a wave 1 extension terminal wave and look for a break down of the overlapping structure (at this time the lower trend line which may represent the ii-iv line). Wave v's however can break the ii-iv line in their formation so the down move should be convincing.
_________________
If We Had Some Global Warming
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJUFTm6cJXM
Hide the Decline
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMqc7PCJ-nc
Last edited by Dsquare on Tue Nov 24, 2009 1:47 am; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dsquare
Joined: 19 Jun 2004
Posts: 7867
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 23, 2009 11:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
Well, perhaps an extended terminal 5th for a c wave to end a flat (wave v will need to stay smaller than wave iii). But will need to check the whole wave and don't think I have time during the day. Got stopped out this morning.
_________________
If We Had Some Global Warming
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJUFTm6cJXM
Hide the Decline
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMqc7PCJ-nc |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
waldipup
Joined: 06 Apr 2006
Posts: 8429
Location: new york usa
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 23, 2009 11:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Dont discount that in a roaring bull market , it is not uncommon for an "overbought" condition to be mitigated by a mild drop/lull in the advance just enough for an additional upward move to then follow. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kenj
Joined: 08 Feb 2007
Posts: 150
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 23, 2009 10:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
OK, is this finally a short term top with gold over $1,171 and the HUI over 494? This is getting ridiculous.
First, the Daily Sentiment Index for gold is apparently at 97%. That's a dangerously extreme number. How high does sentiment have to get before gold pulls back? 99%? 100%? Surely such a high bullish reading indicates a short-term top must be near.
Second, when I look at the 9 day RSI for gold I see a potential top. When the market closed on Fri, Nov 20th gold had a 9 day RSI of 79.92. With gold moving higher right now that will easily put the 9 day RSI over 80 and probably over 81. If you look at the past, anytime gold gets over 80 on the 9 day RSI it always corrects. In fact, the highest reading for gold for the 9 day RSI I could find in the past 3 years was 88.89 on Nov 8, 2007 when gold closed at $837.50. Gold then declined to a closing low of 778 on Nov 19th with the 9 day RSI at 38.37. That was a decline of 7.1%. When are we going to see gold decline even 4% or 5% let alone 7.1%? Gold has been on a non-stop relentless climb since it a hit a low on Oct 29th.
Third, Frank Barbera has a number of technical indicators that imply in his opinion the gold market is very near or at a major high.
Thoughts? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
waldipup
Joined: 06 Apr 2006
Posts: 8429
Location: new york usa
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 23, 2009 9:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
http://www.redstate.com/erick/.....ing-fraud/
Ed Morrisey, at Hot Air, and others have done significant digging into the emails and documents. The highlights are:
1.Prominent environmental scientists organize a boycott of scientific journals if those journals publish scholarly material from global warming dissidents.
2.The scientists then orchestrate attacks on the dissidents because of their lack of scholarly material published in scientific journals.
3.The scientists block from the UN’s report on global warming evidence that is harmful to the anthropogenic global warming consensus.
4.The scientists, when faced with a freedom of information act request for their correspondence and data, delete the correspondence and data lest it be used against them.
5.The scientists fabricate data when their data fails to prove the earth is warming. In fact, in more than one case, scientists engaged in lengthy emails on how to insert additional made up data that would in turn cause their claims to stand out as legitimate
I like this from the Pat Buchanan article I'd posted.
"While the ice cap at the North Pole is receding, the Antarctic ice cap, which contains 90 percent of the world's ice, is expanding."
HA HA HA |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dsquare
Joined: 19 Jun 2004
Posts: 7867
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 23, 2009 2:04 am Post subject: AMS |
|
|
|
| Quote: | The survey results, published in the October 2009 issue of “Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society” (BAMS), show that a significant portion of meteorologists continue to doubt that man is the driving force of climate change. When asked about the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) statement that “Most of the warming since 1950 is very likely human-induced,” a full 50% either disagree or strongly disagree. 25% were neutral and a mere 24% said they agreed or strongly agreed.
Similarly, meteorologists doubt the very global climate models on which the anthropogenic global warming theory is based. These models have been shown to be incapable of predicting historical climate changes and their predictions continue to fall outside of scientific norms. Reflecting this, 52% of the meteorologists disagreed with that statement that “Global climate models are reliable in their projections for a warming of the planet.” A mere 19% said they agreed with the statement. |
| Quote: | Among the other highlights in the survey and the accompanying article:
41% said the greatest obstacle to reporting on climate change was too much scientific uncertainty
The “data suggests a deeper cynicism among some on-air forecasters”
The IPCC was not considered a trusted source of scientific data by some respondents who said it was “the most political”
Former Vice President Al Gore was not thought of favorably and referred to as a “snake-oil salesman” |
http://www.examiner.com/x-2506.....e-Examiner
_________________
If We Had Some Global Warming
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJUFTm6cJXM
Hide the Decline
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMqc7PCJ-nc |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dsquare
Joined: 19 Jun 2004
Posts: 7867
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dsquare
Joined: 19 Jun 2004
Posts: 7867
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 23, 2009 1:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Quote: | | On one side of the fence, there are literally 100's of scientists, if not 1000's stating concern about global warming. |
I'd say they are a minority. There's a petition signed by what 31,000 scientists against. Also a list of Canadian scientists against in a letter to the Prime Minister a few years ago.
_________________
If We Had Some Global Warming
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJUFTm6cJXM
Hide the Decline
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMqc7PCJ-nc |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dsquare
Joined: 19 Jun 2004
Posts: 7867
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dsquare
Joined: 19 Jun 2004
Posts: 7867
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bbones
Joined: 29 Aug 2005
Posts: 1100
Location: winnipeg
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 22, 2009 10:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
With all the spin and counterspin by the powers to be, I don't put much weight on stories like this.
On one side of the fence, there are literally 100's of scientists, if not 1000's stating concern about global warming. I don't see any real up side for them forcasting this...except maybe personal recognition. Certainly no monetary gain.
On the other side of the fence are huge corporations who potentially stand to lose or stand to pay out huge sums to comply with stricter emission rules. They have huge bank rolls and I am sure vast quantities of cash are being and have been directed towards discrediting the theory of global warming.
In my unqualified opinion, this is just their latest attempt. It's certainly not hard to edit emails.
You don't have to be a rocket scientist to see the effects of warming and I don't think you have to be one either to consider man and technology have had an effect on global climate.
One just has to look out the window.
But it appears concern for the bottom line will once again trump common sense and the greater good.
_________________
Murphy was an optimist |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
