QE is creating a speculative stock bubble.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by lustylad

Wow, I can't believe you actually pat yourself on the back after posting something so colossally stupid! You really are dumber than dumb. You don't even realize how illogical your arguments are. You say Reagan should have thanked Carter for calling in Volker to put out the inflation fires - knowing Carter was the arsonist? Yeah, that makes sense.

!

You dumb lying muther fucker, Carter was putting out Nixon's fire. He just waited to long before signing up Volcker.

Originally Posted by lustylad

And if you want to blame Reagan for Ollie North's free-lancing, you should at least put it in perspective. Was any damage done by selling a few weapons to Iran in 1986? Maybe it kept the Iran-Iraq war going a little longer - so what? Now compare that with the long-term strategic setback suffered by the US when Jimmy Carter shoved the Shah off his Peacock Throne. 34 years of "Death to America", state-sponsored terrorism in Lebanon, Khobar, Buenos Aires, etc., a hostile Iran on the verge of having nukes and seeking to dominate the Straits of Hormuz... How can any serious observer of American foreign policy equate the two? Only a totally blind dumbfuck like WTF would even try!

It can not be proven but it sure the fuck looked like payback for not releasing the hostages (like they had agreed upon) and waiting until after the 1980 election. So if you think there is no harm in Iran influencing our 1980 election , then of course there was no damage. They wanted Carter out of office and Reagan in! Their actions speak as much. Carter wanted us energy independent, Reagan wanted us sucking from their tit. Who would you want elected if you had a pile of oil?

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by WTF

You dumb lying muther (sic) fucker, Carter was putting out Nixon's fire. He just waited to (sic) long before signing up Volcker.

Hey WTFuckhead, if you want to be even a teeny bit persuasive you should try to remember what the other guy just posted. Otherwise you should be in an Alzheimer's ward.

If you had been paying attention, you would know that I already served up the inflation numbers for 1976-80. Look at them again. They show that Gerry Ford put out Nixon's inflation fire, not your idiot peanut farmer. Carter inherited an annual inflation rate of 4.9%. He nearly doubled it in his first 2 years in office to 9.0% and nearly tripled it to 13.3% by the end of his third year. Those are the facts (Dec. over Dec. CPI changes). What do you want to believe - the facts, or your lying prejudices? Whatever, just don't make me regurgitate the facts again.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by WTF

It can not be proven but it sure the fuck looked like payback for not releasing the hostages (like they had agreed upon) and waiting until after the 1980 election. So if you think there is no harm in Iran influencing our 1980 election , then of course there was no damage. They wanted Carter out of office and Reagan in! Their actions speak as much. Carter wanted us energy independent, Reagan wanted us sucking from their tit. Who would you want elected if you had a pile of oil?

Wow, it looks like you and Jimma the peanuthead still have a chip on your shoulders about losing the 1980 election. Why else would you promote idiot conspiracy theories? The Iranians hated Carter and treated him with contempt. They didn't know or care about Reagan. If they only wanted to influence the election, they could have released the hostages in mid-Nov. 1980 instead of waiting until the swearing in. And if they wanted more oil revenues, they sure didn't get it from Reagan, since global oil prices fell on his watch.

Meanwhile, you completely ignore the huge strategic screw-up Carter made when he wouldn't support a crackdown by the Shah. The fallout of that naive and ill-considered decision has been very, very negative for 34 long years and it's still being felt. But I guess libtards like you think it's hunky dory to be dealing with mullahs and apocalyptic religious zealots racing for the bomb instead of the Pahlavis.

[LovingKayla]

Hey I'm not reading the whole thread, so I'm just going to cheat and post one comment.


Don't sell because you think it's going to drop. I've done very well with the tethered sling shot on covered calls the past two years. We had a dip a month ago or so, and all you do is just throw out a near month call while it drops, and watch your profit go nuts. Seriously you guys, this is so easy, I can't believe it's not illegal. Besides, if you do just a tiny amount of research, reading M1-5 and all the lowers are so freaking easy. I am the first to say, I'm not the sharpest pencil in the box, but I've got the most lead. pardon the pun..... oh wait.

[BJerk]

Originally Posted by LovingKayla

Hey I'm not reading the whole thread, so I'm just going to cheat and post one comment.


Don't sell because you think it's going to drop. I've done very well with the tethered sling shot on covered calls the past two years. We had a dip a month ago or so, and all you do is just throw out a near month call while it drops, and watch your profit go nuts. Seriously you guys, this is so easy, I can't believe it's not illegal. Besides, if you do just a tiny amount of research, reading M1-5 and all the lowers are so freaking easy. I am the first to say, I'm not the sharpest pencil in the box, but I've got the most lead. pardon the pun..... oh wait.

I'm delighted that you don't reflexively oppose the rational actions of the Fed.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by lustylad

Meanwhile, you completely ignore the huge strategic screw-up Carter made when he wouldn't support a crackdown by the Shah. The fallout of that naive and ill-considered decision has been very, very negative for 34 long years and it's still being felt. But I guess libtards like you think it's hunky dory to be dealing with mullahs and apocalyptic religious zealots racing for the bomb instead of the Pahlavis.

Then you were against the Iraq war?

[I B Hankering]

What hasn't been mentioned is that the lib-retarded press of that time was denouncing and shrilly screaming that Reagan was doing nothing to secure the release of American hostages held in Lebanon. Fact is, though it made Reagan look like a hypocrite, LTC North's primary objective in that weapons exchange was to secure the release of those American hostages. And those American hostages were released; so North's plan worked. Any aid from those weapons given to Iran was more than offset by the aid and intelligence given to Iraq during their desert war.

Originally Posted by Bert Jones

I'm delighted that you don't reflexively oppose the rational actions of the Fed.

Keep drinking your Kool Aid, BJ.

[Old-T]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

What hasn't been mentioned is that the lib-retarded press of that time was denouncing and shrilly screaming that Reagan was doing nothing to secure the release of American hostages held in Lebanon. Fact is, though it made Reagan look like a hypocrite, LTC North's primary objective in that weapons exchange was to secure the release of those American hostages. And those American hostages were released; so North's plan worked. Any aid from those weapons given to Iran was more than offset by the aid and intelligence given to Iraq during their desert war.


Keep drinking your Kool Aid, BJ.

You should listen to your own words of wisdom. Your revisionist interpretation of North's little embarrassment and his motives is laughable.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Old-T

You should listen to your own words of wisdom. Your revisionist interpretation of North's little embarrassment and his motives is laughable.

You should read something about the matter before you publicly embarrass your ignorant ass, Old-Twerp: the Prophylactic Man. Page 339 of Best Laid Plans (1988) by lib-retarded CBS correspondent David C. Martin would be a good start, Old-Twerp: the Prophylactic Man. Plus, Old-Twerp: the Prophylactic Man, there's this revelation from this past summer:

Exclusive: CIA Files Prove America Helped Saddam as He Gassed Iran
BY SHANE HARRIS AND MATTHEW M. AID | AUGUST 26, 2013

"In 1988, during the waning days of Iraq's war with Iran, the United States learned through satellite imagery that Iran was about to gain a major strategic advantage by exploiting a hole in Iraqi defenses. U.S. intelligence officials conveyed the location of the Iranian troops to Iraq, fully aware that Hussein's military would attack with chemical weapons, including sarin, a lethal nerve agent.

".... a decision was made at the top level of the U.S. government (almost certainly requiring the approval of the National Security Council and the CIA). The DIA was authorized to give the Iraqi intelligence services as much detailed information as was available about the deployments and movements of all Iranian combat units. That included satellite imagery and perhaps some sanitized electronic intelligence. There was a particular focus on the area east of the city of Basrah where the DIA was convinced the next big Iranian offensive would come. The agency also provided data on the locations of key Iranian logistics facilities, and the strength and capabilities of the Iranian air force and air defense system. Francona described much of the information as "targeting packages" suitable for use by the Iraqi air force to destroy these targets.

"... the agency gauged the number of dead as somewhere between "hundreds" and "thousands" in each of the four cases where chemical weapons were used prior to a military offensive. According to the CIA, two-thirds of all chemical weapons ever used by Iraq during its war with Iran were fired or dropped in the last 18 months of the war."



http://www.foreignpolicy.com/article...he_gassed_iran

[Old-T]

Here is the Library Journal's thought on that book: "This is exciting, informative, and disturbing required reading. Martin and Walcott lack the strongly articulated perspective (a.k.a., ideology) of some other recent valuable works, e.g., Leslie Cockburn's Out of Control ( LJ 2/1/88) and therefore do not push analytically beneath the surface." I would say that is a fair assessment.

As to most your post, I never said the US didn't aid Iraq. Based upon the available public info our intent certainly seemed to be that we would provide help judiciously to make sure neither truly won.

By the way, look at your partially redacted memo. 24 Feb 1984. Where were you then? I know where I was--in a large building overlooking the eastern end of Tampa Bay. I am quite familiar with that memo and several others like it.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Old-T

Here is the Library Journal's thought on that book: "This is exciting, informative, and disturbing required reading. Martin and Walcott lack the strongly articulated perspective (a.k.a., ideology [Martin and Walcott are not ideologues -- that's a "positive", Old-Twerp: the Prophylactic Man]) of some other recent valuable works, e.g., Leslie Cockburn's Out of Control ( LJ 2/1/88) and therefore do not push analytically beneath the surface." I would say that is a fair assessment.

As to most your post, I never said the US didn't aid Iraq. Based upon the available public info our intent certainly seemed to be that we would provide help judiciously to make sure neither truly won.

By the way, look at your partially redacted memo. 24 Feb 1984. Where were you then? I know where I was--in a large building overlooking the eastern end of Tampa Bay. I am quite familiar with that memo and several others like it.

"Best Laid Plans is an important, objective and revealing dissection of this country's attempts to combat the scourge of international terrorism," Henry Kissinger.


"The scandal began as an operation to free the seven American hostages being held in Lebanon by a group with Iranian ties connected to the Army of the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution." Iran-Contra Affair


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

[WTF]

Originally Posted by lustylad

If you had been paying attention, you would know that I already served up the inflation numbers for 1976-80. Look at them again. They show that Gerry Ford put out Nixon's inflation fire, not your idiot peanut farmer. Carter inherited an annual inflation rate of 4.9%. He nearly doubled it in his first 2 years in office to 9.0% and nearly tripled it to 13.3% by the end of his third year. Those are the facts (Dec. over Dec. CPI changes). What do you want to believe - the facts, or your lying prejudices? Whatever, just don't make me regurgitate the facts again.

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, 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 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 lustylad

And if they wanted more oil revenues, they sure didn't get it from Reagan, since global oil prices fell on his watch.

Meanwhile, you completely ignore the huge strategic screw-up Carter made when he wouldn't support a crackdown by the Shah. The fallout of that naive and ill-considered decision has been very, very negative for 34 long years and it's still being felt. But I guess libtards like you think it's hunky dory to be dealing with mullahs and apocalyptic religious zealots racing for the bomb instead of the Pahlavis.

Oil prices fell on his watch because demand was down. So you think we should have propped up the Shah and I guess Saddam too? So do you think the Iraq war was a mistake? Did Reagan high tail it after the Marine barrack bombings. Just curious.

[Old-T]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

"Best Laid Plans is an important, objective and revealing dissection of this country's attempts to combat the scourge of international terrorism," Henry Kissinger.


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

What a reaffirmation that you are truly IBMoron. You now feel the need to highlight to me what I just said to you? Really?

Yes, it is "required reading". So? That was part of what I quoted TO YOU. Do you in your sick mind think that means I disagree with it? If so, I would have said so very clearly.

Once again YOU manage to fixate on the pieces that are not controversial, and IGNORE the piece I highlighted for you. I'll point it out once more for you: "....and therefore [they] do not push analytically beneath the surface."That is the issue, IBMyopic. International politics and covert actions are not as simple as your simple mind wishes they were.

PS: No shock, but I notice you once more ignore a very simple question put in front of you. Should I turn it into a multiple choice quiz for you? Would that be easier? OK, I'm a nice person so I will.

Where was IBProphylacicMan on 24 Feb 1984:
(a) An inpatient at a mental ward
(b) The same place you are now, in mommy's basement
(c) Too spaced out on exotic chemicals to remember
(d) At the local adult novelty store hunting for your first blow-up doll

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Old-T

What a reaffirmation that you are truly IBMoron. You now feel the need to highlight to me what I just said to you? Really?

Yes, it is "required reading". So? That was part of what I quoted TO YOU. Do you in your sick mind think that means I disagree with it? If so, I would have said so very clearly.

Once again YOU manage to fixate on the pieces that are not controversial, and IGNORE the piece I highlighted for you. I'll point it out once more for you: "....and therefore [they] do not push analytically beneath the surface."That is the issue, IBMyopic. International politics and covert actions are not as simple as your simple mind wishes they were.

PS: No shock, but I notice you once more ignore a very simple question put in front of you. Should I turn it into a multiple choice quiz for you? Would that be easier? OK, I'm a nice person so I will.

Where was IBProphylacicMan on 24 Feb 1984:
(a) An inpatient at a mental ward
(b) The same place you are now, in mommy's basement
(c) Too spaced out on exotic chemicals to remember
(d) At the local adult novelty store hunting for your first blow-up doll

What was more notable -- and more relevant -- was what you ignorantly chose to "skip over", Old-Twerp: the Prophylactic Man. BTW, Old-Twerp: the Prophylactic Man, you missed this:

"The scandal began as an operation to free the seven American hostages being held in Lebanon by a group with Iranian ties connected to the Army of the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution." Iran-Contra Affair

BTW, Old-Twerp: the Prophylactic Man, the wiki article is based on:

EXCERPTS FROM THE TOWER COMMISSION'S REPORT

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.

Second, the U.S. Government had a latent and unresolved interest in establishing ties to Iran. Few in the U.S. Government doubted Iran's strategic importance or the risk of Soviet meddling in the succession crisis that might follow the death of Khomeini. For this reason, some in the U.S. Government were convinced that efforts should be made to open potential channels to Iran.

Arms transfers ultimately appeared to offer a means to achieve both the release of the hostages and a strategic opening to Iran.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/PS157...20EXCERPTS.htm

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

[Old-T]

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.