Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Liberalism: Do You Agree We've Had Enough of It? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (19712)	12/22/2007 2:17:51 PM
From: tonto	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 224864

Why would anyone fear a politician? That was really a stupid comment. What will he do, hit me with his hairbrush? Few people fear men who brush their hair for as long as John Edwards does...that is very wimpy, don't you think? Let's go back to your statement: and then please answer, my question,Why are you such a liar? From: Kenneth E. Phillipps 5/3/2007 4:42:54 PM 1 Recommendation Read Replies (2) of 107220 After searching my CONSCIENCE, I have decided I cannot vote for any candidate who has SUPPORTed the Iraq war. That leaves me with only one candidate to SUPPORT. MANCHESTER, NH — Revelations in today’s New York Times regarding John Edwards’ staunch pro-war stance as a Vice Presidential candidate in 2004 “raise serious questions about the credibility of his positions on every issue being debated in this Presidential campaign,” Ohio Congressman and Democratic Presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich said today.“Voters have every right to ask, ‘Were you telling the truth then, John, or are you telling the truth now?’ And Senator Edwards has a responsibility to answer,” Kucinich said. In a major story today about the relationship between Edwards and Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry during the 2004 campaign, the Times reported, “Mr. Kerry had increasing doubts about the war. But Mr. Edwards argued that they should not renounce their votes — they had to show conviction and consistency.” Edwards was a co-sponsor of the 2002 war authorization resolution, along with Sen. Joseph Lieberman. n his time in the Senate, Edwards co-sponsored 203 bills.[15] Among them was Lieberman's 2002 Iraq War Resolution (S.J.Res.46) which he co-sponsored along with 15 other senators, but which did not go to a vote;[16] he voted for replacement resolution (H.J Res. 114) in the full Senate to authorize the use of military force against Iraq, which passed by a vote of 77 to 23,[17] saying on October 10, 2002 that "Almost no one disagrees with these basic facts: that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a menace; that he has weapons of mass destruction and that he is doing everything in his power to get nuclear weapons; that he has supported terrorists; that he is a grave threat to the region, to vital allies like Israel, and to the United States; and that he is thwarting the will of the international community and undermining the United Nations' credibility."[18] He defended his vote on an October 10, 2004 appearance on Meet the Press, saying "I would have voted for the resolution knowing what I know today, because it was the right thing to do to give the president the authority to confront Saddam Hussein...I think Saddam Hussein was a very serious threat. I stand by that, and that's why [John Kerry and I] stand behind our vote on the resolution".[19]

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (19712)	12/22/2007 3:11:12 PM
From: miraje	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 224864

It's obvious that you fear Edwards. Are you trying to channel American Sister? Remember how many times she said that the GOP was supposed to "fear Kerry", her flip flopping gasbag "hunka hunka stud muffin"?? Or is Edwards, that lightweight, ambulance chasing rabble rouser, to be feared because he has better hair than Kerry??

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (19712)	12/22/2007 5:07:58 PM
From: Hope Praytochange	Respond to of 224864

rece$$ion 2008, kennyboy ?? Business Week 2008 Forecasters Expect Further Gains Business Week 2008 Forecasters Expect Further Gains posted on: December 21, 2007 \| about stocks: DIA / IVV / SPY For some reason, Business Week decided to do away with their Fearless Forecasts outlook piece this year. Instead, they narrowed down the number of strategists from 80 to less than 15. Last year's consensus price targets for the major indices did pretty well. Strategists expected a gain in the S&P 500 of 5.85%, and the current YTD gain stands at 4.13%. They expected a gain in the Nasdaq of 9.62%, and the current YTD gain stands at 10.71%. Below we highlight the strategists who made the closest year-end S&P 500 calls as of 12/21. Two Barry's (Barry Hyman and Barry Ritholtz) and Doug Bermingham are within a mere 7 bps of the actual price level of the S&P 500. (And we have to give props to Barry Ritholtz for making the best individual stock call in the survey with MOS - up over 300%.) Not taking anything away from the forecasters this year, but you would think that Business Week would ask some of the better prognosticators in '07 to make predictions for '08. Tom McManus is the only analyst in the list above that gave forecasts in this year's publication. Below we highlight Business Week's strategist predictions for 2008. As shown, Elaine Garzarelli, Laszlo Birinyi, Bernie Schaeffer and David Bianco are looking for the biggest gains in the S&P 500. Only two strategists are expecting declines in '08 -- Ben Inker and Robert Arnott. Tom McManus, who made the best prediction last year of this year's strategists, is looking for the S&P 500 to close '08 at 1,625. The consensus forecast from all 13 strategists is for a 2008 gain of about 9%. We also provide each strategist's 2007 S&P 500 calls where applicable. As far as individual stocks go, AIG, ORCL, FCSX, PEP and SBUX were mentioned as favorites.