Shotei's Comments

When Do Regulations Turn Private Insurance into Government Insurance?

Tue, 15 Dec 2009 11:48:40 -0500

Democrats will "cook" the numbers or just flat make something up to cover all the bases.

Global Warming Models: 'Out of Order'?

Sat, 28 Nov 2009 13:36:41 -0500

So what your saying is that GW is a naturally recurring condition. Thanks for proving that the GW alarmists are wrong.

On Nov 28 08:46 AM john s. gordon wrote:

> well CO2 does provide substance for plant growth, but there are many
> other nutrients (K,P,N,B,Mo & more) required for healthy plant
> growth. read the label on your bottle of miraclegro, they are all
> there.
> we have been tracking atmospheric CO2 readings from the mauna loa
> observatory since about 1935. the trend is clear.
> while AGW is not yet proven, the glaciers & arctic icecap are
> telling us something.
> the destination if we are not careful is major land submersion, a
> new carboniferous age & lots of new coalbeds to be mined 65 million
> years from now - by somebody, probably not us.

Global Warming Models: 'Out of Order'?

Sat, 28 Nov 2009 13:31:20 -0500

Bankrupting a country and it's people during a time of recession on the theory that one country can change the entire ecosystem of the Earth is "stupid".

On Nov 28 11:03 AM robdoc wrote:

> The scientific process entails formulating a hypothesis and then
> checking how that compares with the data involved in the process.
> It is sometimes befuddling when the data does not conform to what
> would be expected within the confines and understanding of the working
> hypothesis. Just because a model does not fully describe the data
> does not mean that the model itself is totally wrong. Einstein proposed
> the theory of relativity which currently does not account for all
> observable phenomena on subatomic levels. String theory more accurately
> accounts for these phenomena. The logic that the author uses would
> imply that Einstein is a simpleton.
>
> Most climate scientists believe that CO2 is and will have an impact
> on the climate and the earth in the coming years. To say that these
> scientists are stupid because their hypothesis doesn't completely
> match up with the observed phenomena is to not understand that the
> scientific method is one of testing and further refining. Indeed,
> there may be another variable at play that has yet to be accounted
> for, however, this does not obviate the various other interactions
> that are know to occur.
>
> Further,
> The author loses a fair amount of credibility when he states:
> "1. CO2 is tremendously beneficial. The more we have of it the better
> plants grow. Suppressing it is simply foolish." I wonder how the
> author would feel if he were in a room of 100% CO2?
>
> Finally,
> Discrediting scientists with the argument about "cosmic rays" without
> further refining or explaining said rays is not the height of scientific
> disputing.

Global Warming Models: 'Out of Order'?

Sat, 28 Nov 2009 13:23:11 -0500

Ice sheets and thickness have expanded over the last 20 years. Stop drawing conclusions from one picture on TV of a polar bear swimming. It's what they do. Go to the zoo and watch the polar bears they love to swim.

On Nov 28 11:06 AM wgcamp wrote:

> Someone should tell the seals and polar bears that the ice underneath
> them is not really melting. Then they could stop swimming.

Global Warming Models: 'Out of Order'?

Sat, 28 Nov 2009 13:13:37 -0500

You say....."do you really think all that CO2 being pumped into the atmosphere
> is doing no harm and never will?"...........thats exactly right. The Earth is a big place, it's a perfectly balanced ecosystem. As we create more CO2 the Earth compensates for it over a long time. If we reduce CO2 by 80% like the politicians want in the next 40 years ( which is impossible) the Earth could not adjust that fast and the reduced CO2 would start to kill off all the plant life leading to less oxygen and food for us and other animal life forms. It would snowball and be impossible to stop.

On Nov 28 08:35 AM stocknerd wrote:

> I think the skeptics are going to believe what they want. The arch
> conservatives would never believe global warming because it was first
> made popular by a liberal. What next doubters, The sun revolves around
> the Earth? Or Darwin is wrong. I mean all you doubting Thomas types,
> do you really think all that CO2 being pumped into the atmosphere
> is doing no harm and never will? Science is the new religion and
> you are all praying to old gods. Good luck. Your children's children
> will curse and laugh at you.

What the Senate Health Bill Will Really Cost

Sat, 21 Nov 2009 14:10:57 -0500

And don't forget the government will be racking in Billions in taxes for 4 years before they have to spend a dime. How many changes in the bill will take place during those 4 years? When private insurance companies start to close the government can raise their premiums to what ever they want. But the look on all the peoples faces that think Obama is giving them FREE healthcare when the insurance police come to collect the penalties for not paying, is going to be priceless.

Duke Energy Plans Offshore Wind Pilot Project

Wed, 07 Oct 2009 14:55:01 -0400

"Carbon Offset Program"
Last week I received an e-mail from Duke wanting an extra $4 to $8 a month for this Carbon offset program, to reduce my carbon footprint. I wrote back asking how me giving them and extra $8 a month would make me use less electricity but I haven't heard back yet. I also ask them to stop trying to scam their customers, and trying to collect money to pay for Obama's Cap and Trade tax (carbon credits). Our electric bills are going to triple here soon enough without starting early. After reading this article the money is probably to help pay for the windmills.

Pundits Are Wrong: Healthcare Reform Will Increase Profits

Thu, 17 Sep 2009 11:54:54 -0400

For profit or not for profit doesn't make any difference. Even the largest private insurers United Group and Wellpoint only show about 4% profit over the last 12 months. The government will keep lowering it's premiums until no insurance company can compete. If you owned a busness and paid out say 5 million in insurance for your employees and the government offered you the same package for 1 million wouldn't you take it? Of coarse you would. Thats whats going to happen. Obama has already stated he wants a single payer plan.

On Sep 17 11:04 AM skwestorange wrote:

> This claim/opinion is just seems to be a misinformed fear. Many States
> now have for-profit and not-for-profit insurance providers competing
> and doing so with profit, growth and innovation. New Jersey is one
> such State and so are CA and WA.

Pundits Are Wrong: Healthcare Reform Will Increase Profits

Thu, 17 Sep 2009 10:51:13 -0400

The only problem is "Public Option" will run those private insurance companies out of busness in a few years. Being forced to cover everyone and pre-existing conditions would be enough to close them all down but to also have to compete with the government that is more than willing to take a lose for many many years (see post office) will make it impossible for them to stay in busness. If your long on all those drug companies my advise is to run don't walk to your broker and sell like there's no tomorrow because there may not be.

Health Care: Public vs. Private and the Impact on Health Plan Stocks

Sun, 13 Sep 2009 11:49:58 -0400

Shout it loud. I've been tell everyone that will listen the same thing. Public option will put hundreds of thousands of people out of work also.

The Healthcare 'Rationing' Canard

Fri, 21 Aug 2009 12:22:45 -0400

I love it when these people say "people will die because they can't afford insurance" and in the next breath say the government will save money by dening coverage on things they think is to costly. By the way the bill says that a board of 27 will decide if you get the coverage you need. Out of the 27 members only one has to be a doctor. Listen to the sound logic behind Obamacare, this plan will cover everything, for the people that can't afford private insurance, (small print now) that we deem cost efficent. Cost efficent means if you are able to pay taxes for a long time. For the things we don't cover you can buy private insurance to fill the gaps. WHAT???? if you can afford private insurance to "fill the gaps" why do you need the government plan at all? Obamacare forces private insurance to cover all pre-existing conditions, which will force them out of business in a few years, but the "plan" has enough wiggle room so that the government plan does not have to pay for all pre-existing conditions. I could probably retire today if I didn't have to buy insurance. As must as I want to retire this plan will put tens of thausands of people out of work and cause the healthcare to drop ten fold in this country. I would rather keep on working than have some politician deciding if I'm worth sending to the doctor.

Carbon Trading Set to Triple by 2012

Tue, 07 Jul 2009 12:03:55 -0400

Does anyone else in here live in Indiana? Estimates show that my electric bill will go from $100 a month to $500 or more if this cap and tax scam goes through. Indiana gets about 96% of our electricity from coal fired plants, the highest in the nation.

Tar Sands: How Much Is Out There and Can Nuclear Help?

Tue, 07 Jul 2009 11:53:35 -0400

Global Resources Corp. (an American company)
The only way to extract oil cleanly. Zero water used (no steam needed). Zero emissions. Canada has already pruchased 5 of thier 1 ton machines. The machines extract oil, diesel fuel, several types of gases from anything made from oil, like plastics, rubber tires..ect...they are consentrating on tires right now because of Obama pushing windmills.

Spain: Highest Unemployment Rate in EU at 18.7%

Tue, 07 Jul 2009 11:35:48 -0400

By the time Obama gets through the US will wish we had an unemploynent rate of only 18.7%,

Double Shale Play in Energy Approaches: EnCana and Continental Resources

Fri, 05 Jun 2009 09:22:49 -0400

Global Resource Corporation is the only cost efficent and environmentally safe way to deal with shale.
www.globalresourcecorp.../

12 Stocks in Focus for the Obama Era

Sun, 17 May 2009 15:52:53 -0400

If your going to play solar watch it every day never take your eyes off of it. If your lucky you'll catch a spike and make some money. I think it will be like the internet run up, here today gone tomorrow.
80% of the wind turbines sold in the U.S. are made here. Obama doesn't want us to buy from them he's pushing a turbine company in Spain.

Eli Lilly CEO on Nationalized Health Insurance: Cost Effectiveness Stifles Innovation

Fri, 15 May 2009 11:49:52 -0400

The aurthor of this artical could have saved a lot of space and time by saying , these capitalist companys are wrong because look how well socialist/communist countrys are doing. (bowing down to hier obama)

The Impending Mother of All Oil Shocks

Mon, 27 Apr 2009 11:41:39 -0400

Thank you now I don't have to post anything. You took the words right out of my mouth.

On Apr 27 09:16 AM I need more cowbell wrote:

> You lost me at global warming. Anyone who uses the BIG LIE in any
> article does, I have to look ascance at any author's opinions on
> any other topic if he is not bright enough to understand such a transparent
> scam.

The Obama Effect: Is Clean Energy Outperforming the Market?

Mon, 27 Apr 2009 10:39:34 -0400

This guy (Tom Konrad) once posted an article here dragging down a company basiclly saying the stock wasn't worth having. Turns out the CEO of the company had been to busy to give him an interview and it made him mad. I wouldn't trust anything this guys says.

Tang Capital Partners' Proxy Statement for Vanda Pharmaceuticals Calls for Liquidation

Fri, 10 Apr 2009 10:41:13 -0400

Of coarse Tang wants to liquidate, he owns over 6 million shares and his company owns another 6 million. He's looking for a quick buck. The FDA should not allow this to happen because they are the ones that caused the down fall of the company. VANDA has a new drug that works better and is cheaper with fewer side effects then the drugs that do the same thing sold by the big companys. The FDA can't have them loosing money so they all but bankrupted Vanda. Yes I own a few shares. The FDA stopped this small company from selling thier new drug on the day it was supposed to hit the market. The share price went from around $6.50 to .75 in 2 hours. The FDA is supposed to "maybe" ok the drug on 5/6/09. Tang wants to make his money just incase the drug isn't approved.

Three Things Obama Will Do to Advance Alternative Energy

Wed, 17 Dec 2008 15:29:22 -0500

Dear frflyer,
Your first paragragh tells us all how stupid we are and then your rant begins, coal is killing 24000 americans a year more than homicides and AIDS combined. Since there are over 16000 homicides and over 15000 Aids related deaths per year that pretty much makes the rest of your speech, crap.

Three Things Obama Will Do to Advance Alternative Energy

Tue, 16 Dec 2008 15:39:35 -0500

and at a very reasonable price. thank you very much

Three Things Obama Will Do to Advance Alternative Energy

Tue, 16 Dec 2008 14:39:36 -0500

You left out the part about Bush flying the plane that brought down one of the towers.
I hope your right about Obama, I'm neither Dem. or Rep.
I go with the one with the most ideas I agree with. I'd love to have a windmill in my back yard and solar panels on the roof, but, for the cost of one windmill I could pay my gas bill for the next 65 years. I didn't make that number up. And, yes I know your talking about wind farms that supply whole cities. I live in Indiana, not enough wind or sun to supply electricty for this area meaning my energy would have to come from out west and travel 1000 miles. The cost to boost the power to get to areas like mine would make it impossible. Maybe after the ozone is burnt off, solar power will be cost efficent.
If Obama does half of what he promised I'll jump on the band wagon with both feet. He would be the first president to accomplish it.

On Dec 16 01:52 PM frflyer wrote:

> Fred Banks
>
> Where do you get your pearls of wisdom? Wind power is cheap, quick
> to build and green. What's wrong with that.
>
> The dept of energy says we could have 20% wind power by 2030.
Solar
> could be a bigger percentage by then.
>
> "I'd put my money on the sun & solar energy. What a source of
> power! I hope we don't have to wait until oil and coal run out before
> we tackle that."
> Thomas Edison, 1931
> Now there's a wise man.
>
> genea
>
> The President can't dictate what companies benefit from an alternative
> energy revolution. What he can do is provide the right incentives
> so Americans can develop new companies and compete.
> Lack of govt support for alternative energy has put us in a catch
> up mode vis a vis the rest of the world. We had 50% of the wind power
> market until Republicans pulled the govt funding in the 80s. It's
> no accident that the largest PV makers are all overseas.
> What people don't understand is that it's the massive subsidies for
> oil, coal, gas and nuclear that make it so hard for alternatives
> to compete.
>
> thmime
> We can't drill our way to energy independence. Impossible! If we
> pumped every barrel of oil reserves off the California coast it would
> give us enough oil for 16 months at U.S. consumption rates.
>
>
> What will give us energy independence is energy that needs no fuel
> ever. No fuel ever to mine, prospect for, refine, transport, store,
> burn, clean up the pollution from, or fight wars over.
> The hidden costs of oil and gas and coal are in the hundreds of billions
> every year.
> They cost plenty over and above the energy prices you pay. Solar
> and wind will be as cheap before long, even without considering those
> hidden costs of fossil fuels. At which point they will actually be
> far cheaper in the big picture.
>
> Shotei
> I believe you are wrong. Obama will make energy a priority because
> it will solve 4 issues at once, economy, energy, environment, and
> national security.
> No more wars over oil.
> Are you talking about the war that Bush and co planned before 911?
> The war that they lied about to fool us into supporting. The one
> where they cherry picked intelligence that supported their agenda?
> The war that has nearly bankrupted our country? The one where we
> invaded a sovereign country that hadn't attacked us? The one where
> we invaded the one and only Muslim country that didn't have Al Queda
> operating?
> Oh, that war.
>
> This won't be like the Bush administration that did everything in
> it's power to block environmental progress. We won't have science
> being censored and hushed up to fit an agenda. We won't have an administratioin
> that works hand in hand with big oil to confuse the public debate
> about climate change and energy solutions.
> Read the books "The Heat is On"
> and "Censoring Science" What they did is criminal. The Bush administration
> even asked a conservative think tank to sue the administration, in
> order to prevent scientific facts from being brought up in a senate
> debate, so they would appear to not have a hand in this particular
> instance of censoring science. A memo was discovered later that proved
> this.

Trading on FDA Decisions: BioDelivery Sciences Could Have a Big '09

Tue, 16 Dec 2008 13:57:22 -0500

My opinion of the FDA.
I owned a few shares of a small pharma that was on the verge a new drug release. The shares sold for $4 and had jumped to almost $7 on the upcoming release. A like drug is made by the big 5 pharmas at a much higher cost to the customers. The morning of the release the FDA decided it needed more testing for "safety reasons". I think they realized the big companys would lose to much money if they let this drug be released. The share price is now at 0.50 all but driving the company into the ground.
The scarey part, the drugs you see on TV from the big 5 couldn't have anymore dangerous side effects if they where cut with rat poison.
How can the FDA refuse to release any drug when there are drugs out there that have FDA approval that have side effects up to and including DEATH.

Three Things Obama Will Do to Advance Alternative Energy

Tue, 16 Dec 2008 13:32:05 -0500

except the unions

On Dec 16 08:52 AM gebby wrote:

> governments get what they want. obama is not beholden to any one
> group. his is a grassroots effort. a decentralized support network.
> he will be able to build the energy infrastucture he has envisioned
> . count on it and invest accordingly.

Three Things Obama Will Do to Advance Alternative Energy

Tue, 16 Dec 2008 12:56:43 -0500

It will take the first year for Obama to get his people in place and the second year talking about how he's going to win the war before pulling out and losing the war. The next two years will be spent campaining to get relected. Alternate energy is waaaaaay down the list.

Blood from a Stone and Oil from Shale

Fri, 21 Nov 2008 12:53:23 -0500

One company, Global Resources Corp. makes this artical and most of the comments obsolete. With thier microwave technology NO water is used, there's NO emissions, NO pollution whats so ever. And not only does it work on shale it works on all petroleum products. Non-recyclable plastics and used rubber tires can be broken down to oil, diesel fuel and fuel oil. Canada, with the second largest supply of oil in the world, is buying Global's machines because they know it's a cheaper and far cleaner way to extract oil. Go to www.globalresourcecorp...
we have the means to be totally free from foriegn oil.

Obama's Green Obsession: More Harm Than Good?

Thu, 13 Nov 2008 10:33:01 -0500

"America is dependent upon a very dirty, very expensive energy source that comes from nations that are largely hostile to our interests. "
Canada?????
Most US oil is imported from Canada.

On Nov 11 01:46 PM LeoTheDog wrote:

> Interesting thesis. I suppose you prefer the approach of George W.
> Bush, on whose watch the economy just thrived.
>
> Did you ever stop to think for a moment that one of the reasons that
> Obama has taken to this idea is that it addresses SEVERAL problems
> at the same time? Whether every dollar invested in green technologies
> is the most efficient use of that dollar in a purely economic sense
> is not the issue. America is dependent upon a very dirty, very expensive
> energy source that comes from nations that are largely hostile to
> our interests.
>
> Investing in green technologies WILL create jobs (economic benefit),
> while at the same time reducing our reliance on oil (environmental
> benefit) from hostile countries (national security benefit). A reliance
> on the free market with respect to America's energy needs, an approach
> you seem to want to continue, has disrupted our economy, polluted
> the planet (placing us in far greater risk over time than you seem
> to understand) and created incentives for the US to invade and occupy
> foreign countries at great human and financial cost.
>
> Could it possibly be that the incoming president sees the BIG PICTURE
> a little more clearly than you?

Wise Energy Use Stocks: Investing in Efficient Lighting

Thu, 16 Oct 2008 11:42:19 -0400

Where can I get a job writing articles building up companies in which I own stock. I own stock in an alternative energy company that Konrad ran down, all but saying they should be investigated. Later I found out he was running down the company because he had been put on hold a couple times he called the CFO. Of course he doesn't own stock in that company. I no longer trust his judgement.

Vanda's Schizophrenia Drug Goes Down for the Last Time

Fri, 12 Sep 2008 12:39:57 -0400

You hit the nail on the head with your last commit. Can't hurt the sales of the big money. J&J, Lilly and Pifizer. The little guy has to have a product thats twice as good and cheaper.