Search results

So the AMT, which was designed to make the wealthy pay a larger percentage in taxes now has the effect of raising taxes for the middle class while not affecting the wealthy. The only person that is stupid here is you, yessirreee.

Not only are you getting reamed by the AMT, but people who make more money than you don't have to pay AMT at all. It is pretty unbelievable how stupid our tax code is.

Yes, a clarification is needed. Which exchanges and/or ECNs do these extra charges apply to?

I guess what I am saying is that I feel my risk of getting a virus is very low given my personal behavior. To say that opening PDF and JPG files is risky is alarmist in my opinion. Also, I feel that anti-virus software can be viewed as a virus itself in that it hogs system resources and slows...

Theoretically true, although it is inherently more difficult for a hacker to find an exploit in a widely distributed application then it is for them to run their own executable. For example, the PDF bug was found by Adobe's own internal security team. Did a hacker actually infect PDF files to...

I disagree. Show me one documented instance where a PDF, JPG, or DOC file by itself is the cause of a virus. Data files do not cause viruses. Executables do.

Nice call. Does that put you back to even yet on GOOG?

I'm not talking about politicians. All I'm saying is that the people in charge of the financial aspect of the government are not trying to bail out individuals for the good of the individual. They are trying to bail out the financial industry as a whole. They don't care about individuals.

Sorry, let me clarify and say that nobody that matters cares.

No one cares about the people who are being foreclosed. The only reason there is so much pressure to help the homeowners is to help the banks which are up sh*t creek without a paddle. I say screw them all.

It all comes back to your underlying assumption that stock prices are lower than they should be because of naked shorting which is complete conjecture. And for you to highlight BSC as proof of your argument seems idiotic to me when fair value for BSC was arguably $0.

I am assuming your point is that BSC was hurt by naked short selling. Well then where did BSC deserve to trade? You tell me. I sure wouldn't buy that piece of crap at any price.

What is your problem? You are touting BSC as a case of the damage that naked short selling can do to a stock when BSC was an example of a company that was severely mispriced on the high side. You truly do not want fair price discovery, do you? This is just another example of you grasping for...

This is exactly the kind of thinking that will never allow us to come to a conclusion to this mess.

It is because he usually so smug about everything - the "I know better than everyone else" kind of attitude - even when he is completely wrong. He also forces people like me to watch him because he moves stocks in afterhours.

This is most ironic considering your previous racially insensitive posts.

Because of one person's quote, you rest your argument?

Yes, I'm sure this type of manipulation never happened before the uptick rule was repealed. As has been mentioned before, there were many ways around the uptick rule before it was repealed.

The average retail investor does not use stops. Cramer doesn't use stops. I am an individual investor and getting rid of the uptick rule has made my life easier.

Once again, a post that seemingly is substantive but really is just conjecture. As long as you can "just see what happens," I guess you might be right eventually.