Reinhardt,scary prediction for tomorrow, 9/2/09

nyarlothothep wrote: »

give it 3 weeks

From when?

Flamed Diving wrote: »

No. Just wait for the market to catch up with his prediction...

:rolleyes:

I don't mean to be picky....but how long do we need to wait?

bonkey wrote: »

Or....

Reinhardt claimed that he cracked the way the system was "run". Surely him getting it wrong is evidence that he's correct, because those running the system are making sure he gets it wrong to discredit him...

...or...

Reinhardt got it wrong because he no more has figured out how the system works than I have.

You mean you've figured out the system and have been hiding it from us all along? :P

Mahatma coat wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MpfH_hgexHo

heres a good take on this reinhardt guy

SO the Iranian Bourse is rampin up a fair bit. that could be te deathnell for the US Economy.

Oh wait what was that you said, Iran are evil terrorists and we should destroy their peaceful Nuclear program and bomb them into the stonage, to Protect the almighty dollar Ahrrrrrrrrrrr Freeeeedums, yaaay

Peaceful Nuclear Program?

What's a Peaceful Nuclear Program? What are the peaceful benefits?

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Well a Peaceful Nuclear program would be one where Nuclear power stations are the intended goal

Benefits, I dunno maybe clean cheap electricity for the population

Anyway there is a big difference between Fuel Grade nuclear materials and Weapons grade materials, something in the order of a magnitude of ten regards the refinement process.

so can you show me anything that suggests the Iranians are trying to build something other than nuclear power plants

or are you just parroting Faux News and the MSM warmongerin?

Let's leave aside what we think think about anything else here for a moment. Do you honestly think Iran are doing all this work for cheap power?

Man if you do you are seriously kidding yourself. Firstly it's very debatable that nuclear power is cheap and in a country with huge oil reserves it would be even less economical to do it. And believe me I'm not being anti-Iranian just anti-nuclear weapons.

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

So with that logic you would have been in favour of the invasion of Iraq?

Here are two seperate articles on the same incident and both concerning Iran. See if you can spot the difference -

1.May 5th 08 http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/05/world/middleeast/05iran.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

2. May 4th 08 http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/v-print/story/35794.html

I reread what I said three times and I can't see where you got that idea from. Or what the links you posted has got to do with what I said either. Maybe you can explain?

Just so we're clear I would prefer that no country had nuclear weapons but I'd accept that no more countries had nuclear weapons. I believe Iran is working towards nuclear weapons, just my belief, and I don't want that. If people believe Iran having nuclear weapons will balance power in the middle east good luck to them but I cannot bear to think about more nuclear weapons.

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Well a Peaceful Nuclear program would be one where Nuclear power stations are the intended goal

Benefits, I dunno maybe clean cheap electricity for the population

Agreed.

Mahatma coat wrote:

Anyway there is a big difference between Fuel Grade nuclear materials and Weapons grade materials, something in the order of a magnitude of ten regards the refinement process.

so can you show me anything that suggests the Iranians are trying to build something other than nuclear power plants

or are you just parroting Faux News and the MSM warmongerin?

LOL, No, I just don't assume the Americans are always the bad guy.

meglome wrote: »

Just so we're clear I would prefer that no country had nuclear weapons but I'd accept that no more countries had nuclear weapons. I believe Iran is working towards nuclear weapons, just my belief, and I don't want that. If people believe Iran having nuclear weapons will balance power in the middle east good luck to them but I cannot bear to think about more nuclear weapons.

That would be my line. I don't believe introducing more nuclear weapons into the region is the way forward.

bonkey wrote: »

Folks...threads are easy to start, if you want to discuss other topics. Irans nuclear program has, frankly, SFA to do with Reinhardt's predictions.

Actually, there's quite an interesting link between two from a CT perspective that should be pointed out imho.

CTers hold steadfast in the hope that someone who successfully predicted a date when the market would continue to fall (and that's all it was) but demand evidence that a man who, when addressing the UN, claimed that Israel needed to be wiped into history isn't someone we should trust with plutonium.

Strange, that.