Remember 4 years ago?

LOL - the entire point of the thread: the market tanked on November 5, 2004, and the "liberal media" trashed Bush for it.

Except neither happened. Meanwhile, the party line proceeds apace, right or wrong on the judgments. Outstanding!

I guess what I find ironic is that Obama won't take the Presidency for a couple of months. Wasn't aware it takes two months to execute a sell order, such that "smart people are selling off stocks now before Bungling Barry raises the capital gains tax." Nothing to do with news worse than before - under the current administration. Record jobless rates, Ford tanks, global stocks tanking on bad U.S. employment news, on and on.

But be sure to lay this at the feet of Obama - who isn't in office yet, and be sure to keep the Bush administration out of the picture. Though they've been in the picture, for 8 years.

Edit: It seems George and I were both wondering how an event 2 months from now will cause a massive selloff now, when sells take, uh, seconds to accomplish. Presto!

 

ROFL!! Do you even read what you type before you hit post? Because there is no way low consumer confidence and an impending recession could have an effect on the markets! CNN is full of coocoos!

I mean unless that is you've been on the phone all morning with your wall street contacts and happen to know that everyone is selling off because Pres Elect Barack will be in office OVER A MONTH FROM NOW! The market isn't as stupid as you're trying to make them out to be. They're not going to sell off valuable stocks without even knowing what will happen in this volatile envoronment we're in over 1 week much less a month and a half.

None of us knows exactly what's going to happen a month, 3 months, or 6 months from now.... So sorry to say, you're gonna have to put your hate on hold and WAIT along with the rest of us. Else you'll continue to make ridiculous assertions as evidenced here.

Geez man, you make it so easy... But then being desperate to blame ANYTHING you can on Barack right now is understandable.

(Yes we Dems are fully aware that the only HOPE your party has for a political future is for Barack to fail. So we're not taking all the attacks personally. Just laughing at the desperation )

 

You might ask yourself that same question. Slow down, take it easy and re-read.

I never said that low consumer confidence and impending recession do not have an impact. What I said was that the sell off is a direct result of people trying to save 15% off the capital gains hike that is eminent.

Read a little slower next time.

Looks to me like Lightness had it right. Shoe is on the other foot now.

 

Thanks NPT for the data, I looked up 2000 as well. Do you have a way to see the days ups and downs for the 4,5, 6th of November?

You probably missed the point I made to begin with ---> I remember the media blaming the election of Bush for the drop in the markets - Then comparing that to the last two days. Not sure if that makes any sense to you, but I don't find it to be a complex sentence.

Shoot, I forgot I was ignoring you.

 

I think this shoe on the other foot thing is gonna be a sore thumb for some time. I mean after all, Bush was blamed for the recession in the first 6 months of his presidency, one that he inherited btw.

Oh well... It will be refreshing to see someone else get bitched at for a while.

 

LOL!

Debunked, let me help you through this a bit more slowly.

The stock market didn't start dropping on November 5. In fact, through November, the stock markets rose. As I have shown.

There wasn't a single entry for Bush and the markets, for several days; I used only 2 sources - the New York Times, and the Chicago Sun Times. Representative, I would think, of the "leftist" media picture you've tried to paint - and there's nothing there, much less, a "concerted attack on Bush over the [non-existent, let's remember] market drop."

I question that you even investigated your information before posting it, since what happened, and what you stated happened, are completely at odds. As to your desire to find data for November 6/7, 2004 - as these were Saturday and Sunday, pretty tough to get what happened on the stock markets on the weekend. You wouldn't have posted something without first knowing it's true, would you, debunked?

There's nothing there, debunked, as usual.

 

I really wish it was possible to help you understand, but since you come into it with the "read between the lines" thinking, I can't reason or discuss with you.

I don't remember for sure if it was 2004 or in 2000, but I do remember the markets going down and the media saying it was Bush's fault. Now the end of the day may have made its way back up, that is why I asked if you had other data.

But, I will leave it at that since you will again "read something into" this as you have in all discussions since I said "the Big O" You took an offense that has made it impossible to please you, you will continue to attack at every chance and continue to quote parts of what I wrote in order to fulfill your agenda. You should get a job with the media.

I now know what it feels like to have a stalker...

 

Hahahahaha! Debunked, it can't be any more apparent how logically flawed is the entire line of reasoning. You make a statement completely at odds with the facts, and it cannot be any simpler than this: you're wrong. You said the precise opposite of what happened. I have investigated and posted the data, all the way to uh, the fact that November 6 & 7 was A WEEKEND, so there wasn't a market!

And as always, when shown the proverbial error of your ways, you simply rely on calling me insane, drug addict, a "stalker" and so forth.

Now might be a good time to heed some wise counsel, debunked: shhhhhhhhhhhh. You've blown it, again. Your attempt to paint a picture that doesn't exist is simply what it is.

 

I figured you would still miss it.

Was my point where the market ended on any specific day? NO
Was my point that the markets had positive or negative gains for the whole day, month or year? NO

My point was what I remember reading about the reaction of the markets after the election. People blaming Bush for the drop and how we won't hear the opposite this time around.
Now do I remember the point drop? NO The time of day of the drop? NO
In fact I am not sure if it was 2000 or 2004 that it happened.

So sorry if you have a personal vendetta against me because I said Big O.

Cry somewhere else.

Actually I think you should really whine and cry about the dates I picked being the weekend. That would get your point across best. In fact, you should post on every thread about the fact I didn't remember the dates of 2004 or 2000 that the election was held on.

If you need more I can give you lots more. I don't remember the day when JFK was killed. I don't know what day he was born. I don't know what year Lincoln was elected.

 

Debunked, I understand it's difficult to be proven wrong, and so I understand the personal attacks can be a way you tend to proceed. YOu can say what you'd like, but again - your words; no one else's:

The stock market didn't drop. It rose. As I've shown, and said many times.

A review of two "left" papers - the New York Times, and the Chicago Sun Times - revealed that not only wasn't there a "concerted lefty media effort to blame Bush for the market crash" on the days immediately following the election, but there weren't any articles on Bush and the markets at all, from the archival look I took. Again, as you've been shown.

I understand why this would be embarrassing, debunked. But rather than calling me insane, or a drug addict, or a stalker, perhaps you could learn to make sure what you write is based on facts, and correct facts at that, over vagaries and baseless allegations. Or not. Do what you will.

*******

And I see you're posting another reply. Not much else to say, so you'll have the last word. Bottom line, you're wrong. You've been shown the actual data, to prove it. Rather than dealing with that, you'd prefer to call me insane, a drug addict, a stalker.

So, in the interest of your peace, you're right, debunked. Despite the fact there was no market dive on 11/05-days following (quite the opposite), and there were no articles trashing Bush for a market dive (that didn't exist), there was a concerted leftist-media conspiracy to do the opposite of what actually took place in reality. My providing you the facts themselves is evidence that I am insane, a drug addict, and a stalker.

Cheers.

 

You don't know what the word "started" means?

So the day was only positives and no negatives.

I don't remember calling you insane? Although I have thought it.
Drug addict? LOL, you have a hard time comprehending much.
Stalker - you are stalking me, albeit just on a forum, safe distance away.

Learn reading comprehension.

 

why guys arguing with simple question..here the facts 4 years ago Bush was the incumbent in power from 00-04 if anything happens on that day to stock markets.. It would be people scared of him getting re-elected, cause they seen what has happened on the 4 years from that..Now Obama haven't got to the white house yet..That's a big difference.

 

Please see above; "d'oh!" doesn't qualify, I'm afraid.

Selective memory much?

Yep, could be - eye'm stoopid. Oh, and uh

- selective memory much?

Yes, I know - "answers to false positions" can really be scary. You're not alone in how much this freaks you out.

'kay. Are you the tutor?

Anyway, debunked - in all sincerity, you've whined about ignoring me, many, many times. I've no doubt it would make your life easier, so out of compassion, I again encourage you to ignore me.

 

Hmm - insane, alcoholic, drug addict, stalker - and now, like Mia, raising an attack on my family life? Extraordinary. I feel sorry for you, to be honest.

Anyway, debunked - the data is the same for 2000. It wasn't until several days after the election that the market began to truly decline:

11/01/2000 10899.47
11/02/2000 10880.51
11/03/2000 10817.95
11/06/2000 10977.21
11/07/2000 10952.18
11/08/2000 10907.06
11/09/2000 10834.25
11/10/2000 10602.95
11/13/2000 10517.25
11/14/2000 10681.06
11/15/2000 10707.6
11/16/2000 10656.03
11/17/2000 10629.87
11/20/2000 10462.65
11/21/2000 10494.5
11/22/2000 10399.32
11/24/2000 10470.23
11/27/2000 10546.07
11/28/2000 10507.58
11/29/2000 10629.11
11/30/2000 10414.49


Your point is completely wrong, as usual.

 

See now you are saying it is an attack on your family life. That is the type of thinking that keeps your rabbit trails going.

 

I think you pointed to this post to somehow say I called you insane, please clarify.

 

I won't dignify your needs, debunked. It is apparent to the community where you go, whenever you've nothing to stand on. Calling me a drug addict, alcoholic, insane, stalker, and drawing aspersions on my family life into the conversation is, all of it, completely and utterly inappropriate. But you've nothing else. Again, I feel sorry for you.

 

See nothing new from you. So now you think I attacked your personal life when trying to get you to see I am not the only one you argue with this way.

Insane ? LOL, still trying to find that?

Drug addict and alcoholic now? Should we add more?

Stalker - that is obvious

Need a kleenex? All of this blood boiling, self confusion, you probably forgot you had a life outside this forum or a job?

Unless you lost you job. Jobless.. Hey I will call you jobless too...LOL

Next will be homeless if I asked you if you had a home. Do you live in a home?

oh personal attack....

(If you didn't get the last parts, it is called sarcasm.)

 

Hey thanks, now I see were I called you insane. Hey anyone else reading that think I was really calling him insane or alcoholic? LOL
Comprehension isn't a strong suite is it.

You really need help.

I wonder how many of my last posts you have also reported as personal attacks.
You should try to get me banned. I need to get back to work.


Oh and thanks NPT, you have proven me wrong on the market drop. My memory must be shot. Sorry.

 

When I said media, I meant news media. And I'm not sure where you draw the line between journalism and news media.

I know you didn't use to have a bunch of talking heads on a panel giving opinions the way you do now. Journalism seems to have taken a back seat.