100% completely OT - Trailing stops

This is dircted at you

Bush knows you can't keep people locked up indefinitely without a trial in the US - so he sent them to Cuba, where he can hold them forever without a trial or hearing.

Click to expand...

WWII we locked up and abused Japanese (some were American citizens), is there a difference? Have you complained or did your ancestors complain about their treatment...NO.

Do not get on a pedestal, the only outcome is being knocked off.

Bush did this, Bush did that...get a life and get real. Of all the Presidents in the last 50 years he is the least to show an inclination to be an absolute ruler.

Politics are a volatile discssion but lets keep it marginally realistic.

NOTE: Personally I am not an advocate of Bush nor a member of the 2 party system.

People that are not citizens of the US but may or probably have conspired an aggressive violent action against us are suppose to be held by the same rules that our citizens are?

I have to be DONE, my emotions have been invoked.

"Of all the Presidents in the last 50 years he (Bush) is the least to show an inclination to be an absolute ruler."

Ron, if you believe that... then please tell me that your TV is stuck on the FOX news channel. If it ain't... then you are simply not paying attention!

Ron, do you know what a "Freudian Slip" is? Every time GW opens his mouth he delivers yet another peek into his psyche.

"This job would be a heck of a lot easier if it was a dictatorship - as long as I'm the dictator... (he-he-he-he)".

I suppose you really think that was nothing more than a joke. It wasn't a joke - not really. That was a Freudian Slip on the grandest order.

It's a waste of time to compare Bush to Clinton. Clinton isn't there anymore, Clinton isn't making the calls. For all practical purposes, Clinton doesn't exist! Bush is making the calls, and has been since 2000.

Hmmm... 9-11-01...? Almost a year into Bush's watch. How could that happen on his watch???

"I'm the decider!" <=> Freudian Slip <=> "...as long as I'm the dictator!"

Ron, you can't justify doing something wrong today simply because, at least once, we did it wrong before! Especially when we know now that it was wrong! How dumb is that???

Having wrongly sent the Japanese-Americans to Internment Camps during WWII is no justification for anything!

TimothyMoulder said:

This is tanamount to the insurance company giving your medical records to the feds simply because they asked.

Click to expand...

No, it is not tantamount to an insurance company handing out my medical records. It IS tantamount to an insurance company releasing statistics about their members. Its the difference between an insurance company saying, "Mark has XYZ medical condition" and the insurance company saying, "Usually x% of our customers see their GP y times a year, but in the last year its gone up to z times a year and they're seeing xyz specialist much more often too." Don't you see the difference? This happens every day for the purposes of medical studies and adjustments to insurance rates; what's the difference between that and gathering stats about phone calls and their destination countries?

As for separation of church and state; if you want follow what all Terry posted then we have already gone too far. I'm pretty sure our founding fathers would be appalled at the idea that it would be illegal to have a morning prayer at school. Or illegal to have a morning prayer before a government function (congress, court, etc).
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
Doesn't creating any rule or law that removes someones ability to exercise their religion (ie, pray in whatever way they'd like to pray) violate the first amendment? Its right there, "Congress shall make no law ... prohibiting the free exercise ..." Pretty black and white. Now, does this also mean that if my religious beliefs require me to sacrifice pigs or horses I should be able to do so whenever and wherever I please? Well if you read that pesky first amendment it means you can't create a law that stops me from doing anything as long as I'm exercising my religion. This obviously won't do as we have to have some laws that are more sacred than the first amendment (like murder). Ahh, so now we're back to interpreting the intent of the founding fathers... From what I know of history and the various men I think most, if not all, of our founding fathers would be seriously ****ed at the current interpretation of their intent on this subject, but they're not here to tell us what their intent was, so we just have to do the best we can at guessing it, and do what the majority of us believe is right.

Tim, your comments sound like they're coming from someone who still believes that GW rigged the first election. What can I say, you can count the votes as many times as you want, but the result is/was the same regardless of if you like/liked it. Unlike Ron its not my emotions that get stirred up, its just my realization that some people will continue to hate GW regardless of anything they hear or see. There are people who absolutely hate Clinton, there are people who absolutely love him, same thing for Bush. Both men have their failings and both have their good points. Please don't convince yourself that either is a great leader, neither of them are, but I for one will pick Bush over Clinton because I personally believe he is better at "establishing Justice, insuring domestic Tranquility, providing for the common defence, promoting the general Welfare, and securing the Blessings of Liberty."

Bush knows you can't keep people locked up indefinitely without a trial in the US - so he sent them to Cuba, where he can hold them forever without a trial or hearing.

Click to expand...

Smart move, George, but what makes anybody think that prisoners of war cannot be locked up forever without a trial? Here are some excerpts from WWII:

As the war progressed the total number of prisoners of war interned in the United States greatly increased and ultimately reached 425,806 by the end of June, 1945. Of this total, 371,505 were Germans, 50,052 Italians, and 4,249 Japanese. From 1942 through 1946 the highest number of Germans interned in the United States was 371,683, reached in May, 1945. Italian internees reached a high of 51,156 in November, 1944, and Japanese prisoners totaled 5,413 in August of 1945. The repatriation of all prisoners of war from the United States was completed by June 30, 1946, except for one hundred and forty-one Germans, twenty Italians, and one Japanese who were serving prison terms in penal institutions.[17]

Click to expand...

I shudder to think what would happen if our nanby-pamby citizens had to fight WWII now. We would probably allow Hermann Goering to plead insanity for killing 6 million people, and turn him loose on "probation".

As far as I am concerned, if they are not American citizens then they have no rights whatsoever under the US Constitution. The only rights they have are those negotiated by treaty between the US and their country of origin. If their country of origin was Afghanistan, a terrorist regime, then that puts their 'rights' down at the bottom of the barrel; that is, zilch. They have no rights to anything, and we SHOULD keep them locked up as long as there is any chance of them again instigating actions against our country.

I am also against allowing them to practice Islam while in prison. Why do these terrorists, that would kill any American at the first chance, deserve to be pampered as if they were human beings? I say reduce their food down to where they lack the energy to protest about their so-called bad treatement. If only my great grandfather had been treated so well at the American Civil War Rock Island prison!

Ron, Mark, Lancie,

Regarding the people held at Guantanomo, keep in mind that not even the furthest left winger wants dangerous enemy combatants released back on the street.

But the people rounded up and stashed there have not been determined to BE enemy combatants, they are being held as suspects. Bush made no provision at all about how these people's status should be determined, separating the innocent from the guilty. Only when the Supreme Court and Congress threatened to get involved did he finally set up a panel to review their cases.

It was WRONG when we did it to Japanese Americans in WW2, it is WRONG today. Just because you screw up once doesn't give you the right to do it again with a different group of people. Even in the article Lancie posted, it does mention that the prisoners eventually WENT HOME!

Mark, I don't think Bush rigged the election. Nearly 6 months afterward, when all the disputed votes were tallied up, Bush still won by a healthy margin. No rigging, just a terrible -- unseemliness (won in his brother's state, declared winner by his brother's employee).

By contrast, we know that plans to invade Iraq were on the table before 9/11. We know Bush is so oil-beholden he sweet crude in his veins. We know Cheney is an oil exec who got $2 million in "delayed compensation" after the Iraq contracts went to Halliburton.

Now maybe nothing here is illegal, just more terrible -- unseemliness. But somebody needs to investigate, because it was pretty darned unseemly.

Mark, my point is, I think you are mistaken about the nature of the information collected in this latest scandal. Remember, one phone company DID refuse to cough up the records without a warrant. If this info was public domain, why bother the phone companies at all?

Finally, I am not consumed with hatred of GWB. I thought he handled 9/11 and Afghanistan well and properly, and I don't fault him for not finding Osama Bin Laden - that's a huge haystack to find one needle. And I had to reconsider my entire stance on the war when the Iraqi's finally had their first free election.

But I do believe that 9/11 was a moment of opportunity to invade a mid-east country, now CONCLUSIVELY PROVEN to have no links with Al-queda, with the hope of turning it into a vassal state and a never-ending fountain of "texas tea" for the US. And not coincidentally, fattening the coffers of the oil concerns that all of GWB's top administration officials are beholden to. If 9/11 had not occurred, they would have found a different reason.

It's also plain there was an agenda at work here. Powell was removed as chairman of the JCS becuase he would have stood in the way of this. He was sacrificed to get the rest of the world out of the way - when all the rationales behind the war turned up empty, it was his political future that got hung on a cross. Generals who objected to the method the war was orchestrated by were retired.

And although it's not in the news anymore, we DO have a draft in place - a "back-door" draft. We aren't conscripting new troops, we just won't let existing soldiers quit when their terms are up.

Ron, I called you out, but understand that I still respect your opinions - I just don't agree And like Mark, I don't take any of this personally, and I hope you don't either.

TM

Terry Woods said:

Hmmm... 9-11-01...? Almost a year into Bush's watch. How could that happen on his watch???

Click to expand...

I am not sure if you are being factetious.

Otherwise, lets see, we haven't had an attack in the nearly five years since that day, using the methods that are roundly being criticized here. But, according to your logic, Sept 11. is his fault. I suppose that had another attack occurred, you would be here grousing that he hadn't done enough.

TimothyMoulder said:

Powell was removed as chairman of the JCS becuase he would have stood in the way of this. TM

Click to expand...

Powell left as chairman of the joint chiefs in September 1993. There have been 5 since then. I did not know that Bill Clinton is part of the Bush cabal. That would actually explain a lot.

Rick beat me to that one. Colin Powell retired from the military in 1993 and was nominated as Secretary of State by Bush in Dec of 2000 and served in that post from Jan, 2001 to Jan, 2005.

It is examples like this that I refer to when I talk about "emotions" being involved. People say what they want to think is correct instead of actually taking the time to learn the details pertaining to a subject.

Does GWB want to be a dictator, personally I think ANY person that aspires to the office of the President of the United States has delusions of grandeur BUT are they actually going to attempt to become one, unlikely.

In general people that run for the Presidency are either rich or financially secure, will being president cause them to become wealthier, more than likely. IF the money obtained is illegal then they should be prosecuted but if someone has stocks, bonds, etc and makes money indirectly it should not matter. This thread started because of issues with investments, should someone remove any investments they have prior to becoming an elected official...oh wait, I think something is already in place that prevents them from doing anything with their finances while in office.

As far as oil goes, the US uses twice as much oil as it produces therefore it should be expected that the government, regardless of who is President, will create ties with an oil "rich" country and protect those ties.

As for 911 it was different from anything in the past, we were not actually attacked by a country, instead it was an Islamic organization that called itself Al-Qaeda. Public sentiment and resentment was high therefore it was natural that the US would go after this group. It was not a country but there was a country that was known to support and offer refuge to this group, that was Afghanistan. So the US went there.

In the meantime Hussein went on Public Television and praised Al-Qaeda's action and stated support for them, not just once either. Did Iraq and/or Hussein actually provide support, weapons, or money...does not matter, he said he would. There were also numerous other comments he made that basically stated "I am powerful and can do as I want". Under the circumstances at that time it was inevitable that we remove this menace, whether the threat was real or not. We know now that he was not a threat, just a rambling fool with delusions of grandeur but had money and did finance terror.

My main point is that Bush is our officially elected President therefore should be given some support until it is officially proven he has done something illegal. Has he made mistakes, undoubtedly, but again I reiterate that he has had to deal with situations that other Presidents have not.

In other words learn the facts and state them, do not spread myths or stories that are not true.

SIDE NOTE: This page may give an idea of what Hussein was doing and why he should have been percieved as a threat.
http://www.husseinandterror.com/

...the people rounded up and stashed there have not been determined to BE enemy combatants, they are being held as suspects. Bush made no provision at all about how these people's status should be determined, separating the innocent from the guilty.

Click to expand...

Tim, ole Buddy, you do not understand WAR. In a war, there are no judges, juries, and determinations of innocence or guilt. If found on the battlefield opposing our troops, then you are rounded up and detained. Period. This is not a court case, nor should it be.

In WWII, many of the top AXIES leaders were eventuallly hanged.

Tim,

The on the state or commonweth level, The Secretary of States (Fla, MI etc..) are independent electeted offices & are NOT employees of the governor.

Lancie1 said:

Tim, ole Buddy, you do not understand WAR. In a war, there are no judges, juries, and determinations of innocence or guilt. If found on the battlefield opposing our troops, then you are rounded up and detained. Period. This is not a court case, nor should it be.

In WWII, many of the top AXIES leaders were eventuallly hanged.

Click to expand...

Little history note, Hitler, Himmler, and Goring committed suicide. Grand Admiral Karl Donitz was tried at Nuremberg, recieved and served a 10 year sentence.

Benito Mussolini was captured, executed, and hung upside down by Italian communists.

Hirohito, emperor of Japan, was never tried and remained emperor till his death.

You can read about the Nuremberg trials here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_trials#The_main_trial

As for Guantanamo Bay it is in Cuba but is technically US soil because we have complete control of the area. A little info about it and the prisoners is also on wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay#_note-6

I am a little slow so did not think about your original post on the trailing stops. You do know there are 2 types, trailing stop loss and trailing stop limit. The first allows the stock to be sold even if it falls below the price limit but if the stock increases then the stop limit increases. A trailing stop limit prevents the sale of stock unless it is at the limit price.

I still think that "everday joes", even if you put them all together in many cases, could not influence stock prices. The main reason is that using stop limits means they will not sell unless the stock is falling for some reason, which makes sense to me...why would anyone want to lose money if they can avoid it.

If the people being detained at Guantanamo and elsewhere are indeed Prisoners of War, then why are they not so called? Why does the administration insist on calling them "enemy combatants" and insist that we do not have to treat them according to the terms of the Geneva Conventions?

The "Global War on Terror" is not a conflict between opposing military units operating under the auspices of recognized governments. How is such a war to be conducted? If the "detainees" are Prisoners of War, when will the war be over? To whom and to under what conditions will they be repatriated at the conclusion of hostilities?

I don't know the answers to these questions. But I am bothered that they are not being debated in public forums. I am bothered that my government reserves the right to ignore to international standards of conduct (the Geneva Conventions) even while claiming to follow them at present. I am bothered that my government has adopted pre-emptive war as an instrument of its foreign policy contrary to over 200 years of historical precedent. I would be bothered by these things regardless of the political party or philosophy of the President. They represent fundamental changes in the policies of the United States of America.

Hear! Hear! Good call Steve!

All right, I cede the point - Bush did not promote Powell from the JCoS to remove him as an obstacle to war. Powell was already out of that job by that point.

I maintain the rest, including that Powell was chosen as the Secretary of State with the intention of ruining his political aspirations. Since the Iraq war was on the table before 9/11, the plan to destroy Powell was in place as well.

TM

rsdoran said:

As for Guantanamo Bay it is in Cuba but is technically US soil because we have complete control of the area. A little info about it and the prisoners is also on wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay#_note-6

Click to expand...

But Bush himself denied this repeatedly, as a pretext for why the "detainees" could not avail themselves of the court system.

TM