Although the election of Osama Hussein has weakened the new world order but the stock market and the v shaped recovery will continue nevertheless.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Election - Market Reaction
- Thread starter mrchuffster
- Start date
Quote from Pa(b)st Prime:
I oppose both because they're stupid. The notion of chicks getting knocked up then paying some MD to rip a fetus out of their uterus is just gross and barbaric. There's a shortage of adoptable children-do the crime do the time. It's a libertarian issue. Ron Paul. Liberty is SO inherent that it starts even BEFORE birth.
Well said Pabst. Agree 100%. The immorality of abortion has nothing to do with religious doctrine. It is a freedom issue.
Quote from hofficita:
Well said Pabst. Agree 100%. The immorality of abortion has nothing to do with religious doctrine. It is a freedom issue.
In order to have freedom one must be capable of accepting responsibility. Even a toddler with the freedom to run around within a 6 foot radius is being given some responsibility. Until some point in the pregnancy the fetus is not a distinct entity for which either freedom or responsibility are relevant issues. This has been long recognized in law and tradition, look up "quickening." It is indeed a freedom issue: the mother's freedom. Enough people who want kids turn out to be terrible parents, really if you're wanting to have an abortion, better for everybody that you get it overwith quickly and easily. Adoption? Bad parents are like bad traders, they can't cut that losing position...
As to gay marriage, let 'em sign a contract to deal with inheritence and spousal privileges and joint bank accounts and all that crap. Doesn't really matter to me whether it's called
'marriage'.
Anyway, market reaction to the election? Asia is up, dollar is up, S&P down slightly. Seems the world is happy while Wall Street yawned.
Quote from Specterx:
In order to have freedom one must be capable of accepting responsibility. Even a toddler with the freedom to run around within a 6 foot radius is being given some responsibility. Until some point in the pregnancy the fetus is not a distinct entity for which either freedom or responsibility are relevant issues. This has been long recognized in law and tradition, look up "quickening." It is indeed a freedom issue: the mother's freedom. Enough people who want kids turn out to be terrible parents, really if you're wanting to have an abortion, better for everybody that you get it overwith quickly and easily. Adoption? Bad parents are like bad traders, they can't cut that losing position...
Well said. At the very end of the first trimester (which to me is the latest you should be getting an abortion), a fetus is the size of a small strawberry. Freedom my ass. If it were a freedom issue, and not a religious issue, the people defending these fetus' should also be defending the rights of other primitive creatures -- but you don't see them out there parading for the natural rights of dolphins ... which are certainly more intelligent than fetuses. So obviously, there must be some belief that humans have more rights than other creatures somewhere in their doctrine...
And the issue isn't black or white. One of the biggest rights issues faced with abortion is rape cases.
Quote from Specterx:
As to gay marriage, let 'em sign a contract to deal with inheritence and spousal privileges and joint bank accounts and all that crap. Doesn't really matter to me whether it's called
'marriage'.
Except that marriage existed long before the definition put forth by the Christian church. In fact, the term marriage was used for same-sex couples in ancient Rome and Greece. So the fact that somehow the church has a monopoly on the word is a bit ridiculous. If the church wants to have a special term for heterosexual coupling, performed at a christian religious service, then by all means, they can make one. That is their choice -- but marriage should not be that word.
As it stands, homosexuals do not have the same rights as heterosexuals.
What century do we live in again?
Quote from Specterx:
In order to have freedom one must be capable of accepting responsibility.
I don't know where you get this retarded assumption. Maybe in your fantasy world some genius like you gets to decide which humans are designated free and which are not. Thankfully we aren't there yet.
Quote from Corey:
So where does this innate right come from? Ah yes, that is right -- as soon as the sperm and the egg combine, they somehow supersede all other creatures on earth...
Naturally, the right comes from being the most highly evolved animals on the planet.
Politically, it comes from an agreement among a society that freedom is better than servitude.
As far as when the sperm and egg combine- that seems the only logical point in time to endow an individual with rights. You seem to arbitrarily think the proper time is after the first trimester. I don't see the logic behind this, and I don't think important decisions involving life and death should be made arbitrarily.
Quote from hofficita:
Naturally, the right comes from being the most highly evolved animals on the planet.
Politically, it comes from an agreement among a society that freedom is better than servitude.
As far as when the sperm and egg combine- that seems the only logical point in time to endow an individual with rights. You seem to arbitrarily think the proper time is after the first trimester. I don't see the logic behind this, and I don't think important decisions involving life and death should be made arbitrarily.
Most highly evolved? How presumptuous. So if a more highly evolved creature were to land on our planet, would you willingly give up your 'inalienable' rights? By your argument, you should, and they should have all rights to exterminate you at free will.
Basically, I just believe that up to the first trimester, the rights of the woman exceed the rights of the fetus. Especially in the case of rape, or where the woman would be unable to raise the child properly. I say the first trimester, because it gives ample time for the woman to a) realize she is pregnant and b) come to a decision.
Is it somewhat arbitrary? Perhaps. But so is deciding that a multi-celled organism in a woman's uterus has more rights than many much more complex, living creatures. Three months is about when the fetus begins rapidly developing into a full-fledged human being.
And your political argument is nonsense. You do realize that the only state of true freedom is the barbaric state of nature? We give up our freedoms to enter social contracts which allow us to live amicably. However, this is a discussion of another matter and has absolutely nothing to do with the inalienable right to life. How does the agreement of society that freedom is better than servitude provide rights to an unborn child?
Quote from Pa(b)st Prime:
An Obama win is in the market. That's why we imploded last month.
You mind sharing the analytical method that led you that conclusion?
"Consider the following: If Obama's growing lead in the polls was a major factor in the market's plunge that began in mid-September, then sensitive econometric tests should have been able to detect, for the months leading up to September, a statistically significant correlation between gyrations in the Obama contract and the stock market. But no such correlation emerged."
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/sto...x?guid={943D9EF9-47DA-463A-A7D0-10295D680C29}