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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Picks of the quarter -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Elroy who wrote (2962)	4/1/2007 3:41:17 PM
From: Dave54	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20435

Good afternoon Elroy, I would like to pick RNO, EPEX, and TXCO in equal dollar amounts please. FWIW I should have 3 stars for beating the S&P, not that it is really important if you don't get the cup.LOL Thanks, Dave.

To: Elroy who wrote (2962)	4/1/2007 3:54:12 PM
From: Thomas Kirwin	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20435

I'm in... Place my $100 in the following three stocks in equal amounts: VPHM - Viropharma UDW - US Dataworks AMPX - Ampex Thanks! Tom K

To: Elroy who wrote (2962)	4/1/2007 5:37:53 PM
From: Kirk ©	Respond to of 20435

Oops... I posted this in the Cisco forum! Lets try it here All buys: ALTR $20 CACS $20 FDX $20 VRGY $20 VLNC $20 VLNC crushed me last quarter... so lets hope it makes it up to me this quarter.

To: Elroy who wrote (2962)	4/1/2007 5:52:37 PM
From: steve harris	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20435

$50 long AT $50 short DELL Thanks Elroy!

To: Elroy who wrote (2962)	4/1/2007 7:15:13 PM
From: George Statham	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20435

Elroy, Last game didn't go so well so might as well try some better quality (earnings & market cap). Thanks, George Buy $30 VLO Buy $30 CCJ Buy $20 AUY Buy $20 AFFX

To: Elroy who wrote (2962)	4/1/2007 9:02:36 PM
From: snookcity	Respond to of 20435

buy $20 HMB BUY $20 WPL BUY $20 TIE BUY $20 MKRS SHORT $20 RMBS

To: Elroy who wrote (2962)	4/2/2007 10:18:17 AM
From: bentway	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20435

Elroy, put me 33 in BWLD, 33 in XOM, and 34 in AAPL. Chris out.

To: Elroy who wrote (2962)	4/2/2007 10:48:53 AM
From: Road Walker	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 20435

I'm in for all cash.

To: Elroy who wrote (2962)	4/2/2007 11:57:14 AM
From: schzammm	Respond to of 20435

Elroy thanks for the invitation, I am always up for a little competition. Even though I am very bearish on the general market and I am currently short and building a position in gold stocks, I will pick a couple stocks. Thanks again. Buy $50 SNG Buy $50 CHINA Best to all Peace

To: Elroy who wrote (2962)	4/2/2007 1:24:30 PM
From: Paul Smith	Respond to of 20435

I would like to enter. My picks - $50 IIG $50 AT Thanks.

To: Elroy who wrote (2962)	5/30/2009 9:43:33 PM
From: bentway	Respond to of 20435

wrong thread

To: Elroy who wrote (2962)	8/9/2009 5:37:01 PM
From: bentway	Respond to of 20435

What if We Win the Healthcare Fight? August 7th, 2009 at 4:04 pm by DAVID FRUM \| 112 Comments \| Share newser.com What would it mean to “win” the healthcare fight? For some, the answer is obvious: beat back the president’s proposals, defeat the House bill, stand back and wait for 1994 to repeat itself. The problem is that if we do that… we’ll still have the present healthcare system. Meaning that we’ll have (1) flat-lining wages, (2) exploding Medicaid and Medicare costs and thus immense pressure for future tax increases, (3) small businesses and self-employed individuals priced out of the insurance market, and (4) a lot of uninsured or underinsured people imposing costs on hospitals and local governments. We’ll have entrenched and perpetuated some of the most irrational features of a hugely costly and under-performing system, at the expense of entrepreneurs and risk-takers, exactly the people the Republican party exists to champion. Not a good outcome. Even worse will be the way this fight is won: basically by convincing older Americans already covered by a government health program, Medicare, that Obama’s reform plans will reduce their coverage. In other words, we’ll have sent a powerful message to the entire political system to avoid at all hazards any tinkering with Medicare except to make it more generous for the already covered. If we win, we’ll trumpet the success as a great triumph for liberty and individualism. Really though it will be a triumph for inertia. To the extent that anybody in the conservative world still aspires to any kind of future reform and improvement of America’s ossified government, that should be a very ashy victory indeed.

To: Elroy who wrote (2962)	8/9/2009 5:37:43 PM
From: bentway	Respond to of 20435

mispost

To: Elroy who wrote (2962)	10/6/2009 12:06:07 PM
From: bentway	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20435

mispost

To: Elroy who wrote (2962)	1/29/2010 10:04:53 AM
From: bentway	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20435

Blair denies 'covert' Bush deal Tony Blair has denied striking a "covert" deal with George Bush to invade Iraq at a private meeting in 2002 at the US president's ranch. He told the Iraq inquiry there was no secret about what was said - that Saddam Hussein had to be dealt with and "the method of doing that is open". The former prime minister was also quizzed about the claim Saddam could launch weapons at 45 minutes' notice. He said "it would have been better" if headlines about it had been corrected. Mr Blair began the afternoon by session by being quizzed about negotiations at the UN on the eve of the invasion. 'Not dissembling' Asked if he thought America would have been happy to "offer a way out" if Britain decided against going to war, he said: "I think the Americans would have done that." THE STORY SO FAR... In April 2002, with 9/11 still dominating the agenda, Tony Blair warns of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction Despite the biggest anti-war protest in British history, in March 2003 British forces join the US invasion of Iraq after efforts to get UN backing fail With no weapons of mass destruction found attention switches to the way intelligence was used to justify war The Hutton inquiry finds the government did not "sex up" dossier on Saddam's weapons But the Butler inquiry finds "serious flaws" in pre-war intelligence And with public feelings still running high, Gordon Brown announces Chilcot inquiry to "learn the lessons" of the Iraq conflict. "I think President Bush at one point said, before the [Commons] debate, 'Look if it's too difficult for Britain, we understand'. "I took the view very strongly then - and do now - that it was right for us to be with America, since we believed in this too." Quoting frequently from his own speeches and statements, Mr Blair faced a sometimes tense morning session, with family members of service personnel killed in Iraq sat behind him in the public gallery reacting with dismay to some of his answers. Mr Blair has used the hearing to mount an impassioned defence of the decision to go to war, telling the panel: "This isn't about a lie or a conspiracy or a deceit or a deception. "It's a decision. And the decision I had to take was, given Saddam's history, given his use of chemical weapons, given the over one million people whose deaths he had caused, given 10 years of breaking UN resolutions, could we take the risk of this man reconstituting his weapons programmes or is that a risk that it would be irresponsible to take?" Sometimes it is important not to ask the "March 2003 question" but the "2010 question", said Mr Blair, arguing that if Saddam had been left in power the UK and its allies would have "lost our nerve" to act. Earlier witnesses to the inquiry have suggested he told Mr Bush at their April 2002 meeting at the ranch in Crawford, Texas, that the UK would join the Americans in a war with Iraq. But Mr Blair said: "What I was saying - I was not saying this privately incidentally, I was saying it in public - was 'we are going to be with you in confronting and dealing with this threat'. "The one thing I was not doing was dissembling in that position. How we proceed in this is a matter that was open. The position was not a covert position, it was an open position." Pressed on what he thought Mr Bush took from the meeting, he went further, saying: "I think what he took from that was exactly what he should have taken, which was if it came to military action because there was no way of dealing with this diplomatically, we would be with him." 45 minute claim Asked about the controversial claim in a September 2002 dossier that Iraq could deploy weapons of mass destruction (WMD) at 45 minutes notice, he said it "assumed a vastly greater significance" afterwards than it did at the time. ANALYSIS Peter Biles, BBC World Affairs correspondent: So Tony Blair remains a "true believer" in the Iraq war. There was not a hint of contrition or regret, in spite of the fact that bereaved families who lost loved ones in Iraq were among those sitting behind him in the public gallery, listening to every word of his evidence. One of the sisters of Margaret Hassan, the British aid worker who was kidnapped and killed in Iraq, said the only consolation to be drawn from this morning's session was that Mr Blair had been forced to appear before the Iraq Inquiry. Mr Blair has remained firm in his belief that what he did in Iraq was right. He was equally robust in his presentation, frequently trying to direct the Inquiry to notes and references which he had brought to bolster his case. The members of Sir John Chilcot's committee did their best to ensure that Mr Blair answered their questions, and did not deviate to the extent that he took control of the proceedings. He said it "would have been better if (newspaper) headlines about the '45-minute claim' had been corrected" in light of the significance it later took on. He said he would have made it clear the claim referred to battlefield munitions, not missiles, and would have preferred to publish the intelligence assessments by themselves as they were "absolutely strong enough". But Mr Blair insisted that, on the basis of the intelligence available at the time, he stood by his claim at the time that it was "beyond doubt" Iraq was continuing to develop its weapons capability. However he acknowledged "things obviously look quite different" now given the failure to discover any weapons after the invasion. Even up to the last minute Mr Blair said he was "desperately" trying to find a diplomatic solution to the crisis but France and Russia "changed their position" and were not going to allow a second UN resolution. Saddam Hussein had "no intention" of allowing his scientists to co-operate with UN weapons inspectors, he said, with the regime concealing key material. Giving the inspectors more time would have made little difference, he added. He also said Iraq had the "intent" and technical knowhow to rebuild its weapons programme and would have done so if the international community had not acted. Mr Blair also denied he would have supported the invasion of Iraq even if he had thought Saddam Hussein did not possess weapons of mass destruction, as he appeared to suggest last year in a BBC interview with Fern Brittan. What he had been trying to say, he explained to the inquiry, was that "you would not describe the nature of the threat in the same way if you knew then what you knew now, that the intelligence on WMD had been shown to be wrong". 'Attack on us' He said his position had not changed, despite what reports of the interview had suggested. Mr Blair was at pains to point out that he believed weapons of mass destruction and regime change could not be treated as separate issues but were "conjoined". He said "brutal and oppressive" regimes with WMD were a "bigger threat" than a benign states with WMD. He also stressed the British and American attitude towards the threat posed by Saddam Hussein "changed dramatically" after the terror attacks on 11 September 2001, saying: "I never regarded 11 September as an attack on America, I regarded it as an attack on us." Inquiry chairman Sir John Chilcot began the six hour question session by stressing that Mr Blair was not "on trial" but said he could be recalled to give further evidence if necessary. Story from BBC NEWS: news.bbc.co.uk Published: 2010/01/29 14:42:01 GMT © BBC MMX