look at this one...

http://www.history.com/shows/ancient-aliens/videos/vimanas

MBOT

New Wave of Polls Brings Bad News for Obama and the Democrats
8 hours ago

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/09/07/new-wave-of-polls-bring-bad-news-for-obama-and-the-democrats/?icid=main%7Cmain%7Cdl1%7Csec4_lnk1%7C169007

216 Comments Say Something »
Print Text Size
Bruce Drake
Contributing Editor
Author Bio »
Contact Author »
Subscribe :Bad news in the polls has become the norm for President Obama and congressional Democrats as the midterm elections draw near, and a batch of new surveys show Obama's approval rating at a low ebb, high negatives for his handling of the economy and a continued trend toward the Republicans in the fight for Congress.

Here's a look at the top findings of surveys by the Washington Post/ABC News, conducted Aug. 20-Sept. 2; the Wall Street Journal/NBC News, conducted Aug. 26-30; and, CNN/Opinion Research Corp., conducted Sept. 1-2. (Some of CNN's findings were released separately.)


Obama job approval
Post/ABC: Fifty-two percent disapprove of the job Obama is doing while 46 percent approve, his worst numbers in 17 polls dating back to Feb. 2009.

WSJ/NBC: Forty-nine percent disapprove while 45 percent approve, with 6 percent undecided, his worst showing in this poll dating back to December.

CNN: This is the outlier in the group: 50 percent approve compared to 49 percent who disapprove.

There was one other telling figure in the Post/ABC poll. Those surveyed were asked whether they thought Obama had brought needed change to Washington -- something that was a mantra in his campaign and a driving force in his election -- and 53 percent said he had not compared to 44 percent who believed he had.


Obama on the economy
Post/ABC: Fifty-seven percent disapprove of his handling of the economy while 41 percent approve. The number of those who said they "strongly" disapproved outnumbered all those who approved (44 percent compared to the 41 percent). Thirty-six percent say Obama's economic policies have had no effect, 33 percent believe they have made things worse and 30 percent say they have made things better. If the Republicans were to take control of Congress, 37 percent said it would have no effect on the state of the economy, 32 percent said it would make things better and 27 percent said it would make things worse.

WSJ/NBC: Fifty-six percent disapproved while 39 percent approved with 5 percent undecided, up from a 52-percent-to-44-percent margin of disapproval in the last poll. This was Obama's worst showing dating back to December. Forty-five percent believe the economy will stay the same in the next 12 months, while those surveyed were evenly divided at 26 percent each on whether it will get better or worse.

CNN: Fifty-nine percent disapprove while 40 percent approve, Obama's worst marks in this poll dating back to March 2009.


Referendum on Obama?
All three polls agree that most Americans don't see their vote in this year's congressional elections as one meant to express opposition to Obama.

The Post/ABC poll says 47 percent don't consider Obama a factor in their decision while 25 percent consider their vote a signal of support for him and 27 percent intend it as a vote of opposition to his policies. In the Journal/NBC poll, 41 percent said their vote was not a signal of opinions about Obama, while 29 percent said it was a message of opposition and 27 percent said it would be a message of support. CNN said 54 percent said their vote was not intended as a message about Obama, while 24 percent said it signaled opposition and 29 percent said it would be intended as support.

Looking at it another way, the Post/ABC poll asked -- regardless of which party the respondent planned to support -- whether it was better to have Republicans in charge of Congress as a check on Obama's policies or Democrats in charge to help support them. Fifty-five percent said it would be better to have the Republicans in charge for that reason while 39 percent sided with the Democrats.

When voters who preferred Republicans in the midterms were asked in the Journal/NBC survey the reason for their preference, 46 percent said theirs would be a positive vote for the GOP, 28 percent said it would be a protest against the performance of congressional Democrats and 12 percent said it would be a protest against Obama's policies, with the rest citing other factors. Sixty-four percent of all those surveyed believed it was better if Congress and White House were controlled by different parties.

Generic Congressional Ballot
Post/ABC: 53 percent of likely voters said they would back the Republican candidate for Congress compared to 40 percent who favored the Democrat. Among all registered voters, the Republican advantage is a statistically insignificant 47 percent to 45 percent. By one measure, that would mean Democrats have room for growth if they can turn their voters out at the polls, but nearly all surveys this year have shown Democrats to be much less enthusiastic about this year's elections than the Republicans.

WSJ/NBC: Among all adults, the public split at 43 percent each between the Republicans and Democrats. However, when the poll looked at those voters most likely to cast ballots, Republicans led by 49 percent to 40 percent. MSNBC's story on the poll said that among those expressing a high interest in voting, the GOP lead increases 18 points. If voters had the choice of an independent or third-party candidate in their races, 34 percent would support the Democrat, 32 percent would back the Republican and 25 percent would favor the independent, with 9 percent undecided.

CNN: Fifty-two percent of registered voters back the Republicans compared to 45 percent for the Democrats. In early August, the Republican advantage was 48 percent to 45 percent. Among all Americans, 49 percent support the Republicans and 45 percent back the Democrats

maybe some reading?

Posted by: lsabear Date: Wednesday, August 25, 2010 9:34:11 AM
In reply to: None Post # of 290763

Here is something I very interesting I came across last night


Posted by: Buckey Date: Saturday, April 30, 2005 1:23:36 PM
In reply to: Rocketred who wrote msg# 191 Post # of 239

check out this.

This was emailed to me from another board. Looks like I am not the only one unable to get certs! Go GLKC!!!
THe following are e-mails that someone has been sending/receiving from his broker Wells Fargo.

E-Trade Red Flag? A Certificate Dance:
« Thread started on: Today at 08:30:23 »

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A few days after Utah's Senator Bennett cited GLCK as a shorted poster child I made two modest purchases, one for 3500 shares through Ameritrade and the other for 3600 shares through Wells Fargo. I thought it might be interesting to prove a short position first hand by purchasing shares in a company that reportedly already had over 100% of it's shares sold (and "legally" documented). I was a little surprised that both buys filled within 10 minutes. Just after settlement date (three days later), I requested certificates from both brokers. The cert ordered through Ameritrade appeared in three weeks with an Ameritrade return address. The cert had a pasted on cusip number which prompted me to call the transfer agent to confirm authenticity. The TA checked his books, found my name in the proper place with the proper cert # and also shared the fact that the SEC had been in their office recently auditing the books re GLCK. As an aside, the young man I spoke with at the TA office (he was not the boss) was largely in the dark on the issue of failures to deliver so I directed him to a few salient web sites.

Getting the Wells Fargo cert however has become predictably (and almost amusingly) problematic. I found it interesting that Wells Fargo (at first) felt free to communicate in a forthright manner in their written responses to my emails. So, FWIW, following is a blow by blow account of the "GLKC Certificate Dance" with Wells Fargo and where the unfulfilled request stands as of now: that Wells Fargo would actually name E-Trade as the short broker/dealer is additional food for thought and a possible giant red flag, IMO.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Online Brokerage Customer Service" To: < Sent: Monday, April 18, 2005 1:56 PM
Subject: Re : Your Wells Fargo Inquiry (#7482-003312-9002\33129002)

>
> Dear Dennis Smith:
>
> Thank you for sending us your inquiry regarding a certificate for your
> Global Links position.
>
> We are researching your request and will contact you directly as soon as
> we have completed our investigation. Please allow us five business days to
> complete our research.
>
> Meanwhile, if you have any questions, or would like additional assistance
> with your account, please do not hesitate to call us anytime at
> 1-800-TRADERS 1-800-TRADERS ( 1-800-872-3377 1-800-872-3377).

Sincerely,
>
> Wells Fargo Investments

***********************************************************************

It's been five days. What kind of "investigation" are you doing? It seems to me a rather simple
request.

What's up?

Dennis Smith

************************************************************************
> Dear Dennis Smith:
„« > Thank you for your patience.
>
> Your position is now available to trade. We were awaiting full delivery
> of the shares from the transfer agent. Unfortunately, due to some unusual
> circumstances, this took longer than we expected. We regret any
> inconvenience this may have caused.
>
> If you have any questions, or would like additional assistance with your
> account, please do not hesitate to call us anytime at 1-800-TRADERS 1-800-TRADERS
> ( 1-800-872-3377 1-800-872-3377).
>
> Thank you for your business and your continuing relationship with Wells
> Fargo Investments.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Wells Fargo Investments

**********************************************************************


Dear Wells Fargo:

Could you please tell me what the above message means? What exactly are the
"unusual circumstances"?...I do indeed notice inexplicable (at least to me)
entries regarding GLKC under my "history" and would appreciate a clear
explanation. Also, what is meant by "your position is now available to
trade? My understanding is that "my position" has been available for trade
since settlement date and should have been continuing until the certificates
(that I requested weeks ago) were mailed. Have you now in fact received the
certificate(s)? Have they been mailed to me per my original request? If
not, when may I expect them?

Thank you in advance for your reply enlightening me regarding all the above.
Dennis Smith

**********************************************************************************8
Dear Dennis Smith:

We have re-requested the delivery of a certificate for your GLKC shares. However, we are still unable to ship a certificate for those shares at this time. Below is a brief explanation regarding this situation.

The broker/dealer from whom your shares were purchased is short 5,000,000 shares versus the street. A broker/dealer is allowed to sell shares which they do not own, which they will buy at a later date and deliver. Unfortunately, certificates cannot be issued on those shares until the shares are actually delivered to us.

We attempted to purchase shares into our house account from another broker/dealer in order to issue your certificate. However, the only broker/dealer offering shares of GLKC in the market is the one from whom we purchased the original shares.

The notations you are seeing in your account history are requests to issue your certificate when the shares are delivered to us from the other broker/dealer. Each day the request is being delayed pending the delivery of the shares to us.

While we are unable to issue a certificate for the position, you may trade the shares at any time.

If you have any questions, or would like additional assistance with your account, please do not hesitate to call us anytime at 1-800-TRADERS 1-800-TRADERS ( 1-800-872-3377 1-800-872-3377).

Thank you for your business and your continuing relationship with Wells Fargo Investments.

Sincerely,

Wells Fargo Investments

Investment and Insurance Products:
Are NOT Insured by the FDIC or any other government agency - Are NOT deposits of or guaranteed by the Bank or any Bank affiliate - May Lose Value

******************************************************************************
Dear Wells Fargo:

Thank you for both the information and for the promptness of response.

I'm a little new to all this but am nonetheless concerned about a
broker/dealers apparent ability to "sell what they don't own" until a
"later" date. Exactly how later is "later"? Is not a 5,000,000 short
position cause for alarm? What happens if my shares are simply electronic
counterfeits which are never covered (I believe in that instance they are
called "naked shorts" or "failures to deliver") and for which no
certificates will ever be available? What would be your position? Who is
the subject "broker/dealer" from whom you acquired my "shares" and what is
that dealer telling you about his apparent failure to deliver? As I
understand it, a shareholder is entitled to physical certificates in every
event, assuming the buy was legitimate.

There seems to be something rather suspect going on here and I'm wondering
if WF (and by extension my wife and I) might be the victim of questionable
trade practices by your market maker.

I am growing quite concerned about all of the above. Thank you in advance
for your response addressing those concerns.

Dennis Smith

*************************************************************************************

> Dear Dennis Smith:
>
> Thank you for your inquiry.
>
> The other broker/dealer who is short shares of your security is E*Trade.
> Though this type of activity makes it difficult to issue physical
> certificates, it is legal and within regulations.
>
> There is no definite date by which E*Trade would have to purchase the
> shares. In many cases, a broker/dealer will sell shares they don't hold
> hoping that the price will fall. If it does fall, the broker/dealer will
> buy the shares at that time, and deliver those newly acquired shares,
> making a profit. If the stock price continues to rise, the broker/dealer
> will eventually buy the shares and deliver them to prevent any additional
> losses.
>
> According to our trading desk, E*Trade was the only broker/dealer offering
> shares of GLKC yesterday. This has been the case since you originally
> requested your certificate. Anybody who has purchased this security in
> that time period has likely purchased the shares from E*Trade.
>
> You are free to sell the shares anytime. When E*Trade acquires shares,
> they would be delivered to the current owner. However, a certificate
> cannot be issued until the shares are actually received.
>
> A vast majority of equity positions are held in street name. Very few
> physical certificates are produced at this time. Client positions are
> held electronically by brokerage firms.
>
> A physical certificate may be produced for most positions if the client
> wishes to hold the certificate personally. In most cases, physical
> certificates are discouraged. When shares are to be sold, the physical
> certificate needs to be verified and then deposited in your account, where
> it than then be sold. This frequently delays the sale. Shares held
> electronically can be sold at any time, without delay, during market
> hours.
>
> We apologize if this is confusing. Additional information is available at
> the New York Stock Exchange Web site (www.nyse.com), the Nasdaq Web site
> (www.nasdaq.com) the the US Securities and Exchange Commission
> (www.sec.gov).
>
> If you have any questions, or would like additional assistance with your
> account, please do not hesitate to call us anytime at 1-800-TRADERS 1-800-TRADERS
> ( 1-800-872-3377 1-800-872-3377).
>
> Thank you for your business and your continuing relationship with Wells
> Fargo Investments.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Wells Fargo Investments
>
> Investment and Insurance Products:
> Are NOT Insured by the FDIC or any other government agency - Are NOT
> deposits of or guaranteed by the Bank or any Bank affiliate - May Lose
> Value

*********************************************************************************


« Last Edit: Today at 08:33:44 by particleswaves » Logged

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

particleswaves
Diamondologist


member is online









Posts: 355
Re: E-Trade Red Flag? A Certificate Dance:
« Reply #1 on: Today at 08:31:13 »


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Wells Fargo:

Thank you again for your prompt and informative response(s) to my concerns
re difficulty in obtaining certificates for GLCK. While I appreciate the
"education" this appears to be an extremely murky and suspect situation. I
am left with the uneasy feeling that my GLCK shares are no more than
electronic counterfeits if there are no company issued (or Transfer Agent
issued) certificates to back them up.

You stated there is no definite date by which E-Trade has to purchase the
"short" shares that they sold you and that in turn you sold me. How can this
be "legal"? What is to prevent them from continuing to sell what they don't
own while subsequently refusing to buy the shares back if there are no time
constraints? Does this not onerously dilute the value of the legitimate,
certificate backed shares if "short" or non-certificate backed shares are
allowed to trade along side the true "long" shares? Again, I'm rather new to
all this but it seems elementary that the more shares (legit or "short")
there are in the trading pool, the less each individual share is worth. In
your earlier correspondence you stated the broker/dealer (E-Trade) was some
5,000,000 shares "short" on GLCK which indicates they have been selling what
they don't own to a lot of people for a long time. The SEC appears
conflicted (and toothless) on this issue so where's the incentive to cover?
Collecting money for repeatedly (and blatantly) selling something you don't
own does not sound "legal" to me at all. How can this be?

You also indicated that physical certificates were "discouraged" in favor of
electronic entries to be held in "street name". Discouraged by whom? I would
imagine that the "discouragement" is coming from the very people who sell
short with no intention of covering and/or those who have apparently found
out how easy it is to counterfeit electronic shares through the DTC's stock
borrow program. My research on the DTC reveals that they (at lest so far)
refuse to open their books, even though I understand they are a private and
for profit entity. Please correct me if I am wrong.

My bottom line is this. I demand the physical GLCK certificate(s)
representing the shares I purchased. I do not intend to sell any time soon
and intend to sequester the certificate(s) alongside certain other stock
certificates that I retain for safe keeping and proof of ownership. I do not
accept what appear to be bogus "electronic entries", particularly in light
of what you have told me about E-Trade being egregiously short on this
particular stock (and who knows how many others). You say E-Trade refuses or
is unable to supply the certificate at this time but at some undetermined
point down the road when and if the price changes and when and if it is in
E-Trade's perceived advantage they perhaps may deign to cover their short(s)
and deliver the certificate (receipt) for what they "sold". That is simply
unacceptable. In any event, I did not buy from E-Trade; I bought from Wells
Fargo. Additionally, your disclaimer of any insurance or guarantee does
nothing to inspire confidence in the legitimacy of my purchase.

I dislike having to be "cheeky" or "in your face" about this, but I reject
the electronic entry and again demand physical proof of my purchase in
certificate form. It appears that both you and I are being taken for an
unwelcome ride; what say you?

Thank you in advance for your attention to this matter.

Dennis Smith


**************************************************************


Dear Dennis Smith:

Thank you for your inquiry.

We have received your request for physical certificates. As soon as we are able to order a physical certificate for you, we will do so.

To trade shares in physical certificate form through a brokerage account, the certificates must be delivered to the brokerage firm, verified and deposited. This frequently delays trading the shares by a number of days. In addition, physical certificates can be misplaced, and replacement can by a lengthy process and involve some replacement cost. Finally, if a merger or other corporate reorganization occurs, physical certificates may have to be delivered to the transfer agent, and a new certificate issued. Certificates often surface years after a company has merged, or had repeated reorganizations, and then must be researched and replaced. For these reasons, most brokerage firms discourage the production of physical certificates.

If you would like additional information regarding how trading occurs on the nasdaq and on stock exchanges, please visit the New York Stock Exchange Web site (www.nyse.com), the Nasdaq Web site (www.nasdaq.com) the the US Securities and Exchange Commission Web site (www.sec.gov).

We are unable to provide regulatory details via email.

If you have any questions, or would like additional assistance with your account, please do not hesitate to call us anytime at 1-800-TRADERS 1-800-TRADERS ( 1-800-872-3377 1-800-872-3377).

Thank you for your business and your continuing relationship with Wells Fargo Investments.

Sincerely,

Wells Fargo Investments

Investment and Insurance Products:
Are NOT Insured by the FDIC or any other government agency - Are NOT deposits of or guaranteed by the Bank or any Bank affiliate - May Lose Value

******************************************************************************************

So, the above rather clipped message from WF was just received Fri after the close and as you will notice the tone and tenor has changed from “we’re trying to do something” to “screw you”.

Those who use E-Trade may find all this of particular interest; additionally it appears that E-Trade is one of the few broker/dealers still allowing CMKX buys (at five decimals). Not sure what conclusions (if any) can be drawn but one possible scenario may be that E-Trade will be the designated naked short patsy for all shorted stocks, take the hit for all their cohorts and simply declare BK. All the money the E-Trade principals have made from what may be illegal shorting activity could be safely stashed out of the country by now. I hasten to add I am not unequivocally stating this "scenario" as fact; the BK patsy idea is only a "possibility" surfacing in my own belabored thought process, a process that could be totally off-base and/or unduly paranoid. Or not. In any event all is in my opinion and in my experience only and offered simply as grist for the mill.

i was chatting some with my other half.

today is very quiet for me.

I thought interesting...

see this one..

MBOT

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=54109255

wow what a beauty...great stuff.

in az we see heavens as i never sawer before in il.

2012 and the center of the milkyway

MBOT


http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=video&cd=5&ved=0CE4QtwIwBA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.veoh.com%2Fbrowse%2Fvideos%2Fcategory%2Ftechnology_and_gaming%2Fwatch%2Fv196799479D76rwNn&ei=LwuFTNPXJYO6sAOo07XbDw&usg=AFQjCNHpKbRpi-EXSld8vQbXghSwfuzvGw&sig2=OH177xYTz83W_XiUOyuVNw

yea, I think so too

MBOT

i didn't know that. probably same fer california.

yes they have many there, report said as many as 200 per day but these are micro quakes, large ones happen there occasionally, just like here...

MBOT

new zealand just showing quaker one. 7 scaler.

good your covered...

MBOT

oh yes indeed.

nope, keep em close...might need one day, ya never know,

MBOT

oh yes and they hurt if placed by your belly.

mine not hard to find.

mine are more like bayonettes, da stickers on da ends of da guns...

MBOT

i got one for knights of columbus.

nie, I gots my swoards already...

MBOT

true family is great and to me. i can make you a knight.

yes mick, you da King, with a Queen....

MBOT

yes, i am royalty.

EARL?

MBOt

yes, i'm watch my middle one. EARL is very windy.

ya gots a plan "B"?

MBOT

yes da bridge that will help growth.

Plan "B's" are my favorite...LOL

MBOT

always need a plan plus plan *B*

that sounds like a plan for now...

MBOT

ya can dream my friend. just like a having one great weekend or looking for da wishing star.

yes, virtues of retirement, not there yet here...LOL!

MBOT

i'm like old folk in chgo. what ever da wind blows.

ya, I like the 80's much better too!

MBOT

no like 90* plus stuff?

It sounds great, from far away...LOL!

MBOT

i see early morning 61* --- 90* already here.

still grey here....

MBOT

oct. generally is cool enough. gets to low 70's.

you won't need it till winter anyway...

MBOT

not now.

are they looking into gamming?

MBOT

not yet but go800 could be involved with any type of online or calling. imho

GOIG does gamming?

MBOT

don't fergets to search fer online gaming ones.

goig 's to be biggy.

ok mick, enjoy....

MBOT

not that, online gaming stuff and who is who.

ging to take'em break.

it sounds too risky IMO

MBOT

kicked my butt.

say gots to concentrate on stuff fer online gaming.

did gamming get ya again?

MBOT

well let's go this route. a lot can be said about many but make it stick.

not again?

MBOT