| StockFetcher Forums · General Discussion · POLITICS GOES HERE | << 1 ... 71 72 73 74 75 ... 76 >>Post Follow-up |
| novacane32000 331 posts msg #108117 - Ignore novacane32000 |
9/19/2012 5:18:44 PM Forget all other issue. The stock market is higher 4 yrs from now if A. Obama is reelected B. Romney wins Gold is higher 4 yrs from now if A. Obama is reelected B. Romney wins |
| TheRumpledOne 6,529 posts msg #108669 - Ignore TheRumpledOne |
11/2/2012 6:20:34 PM IN MY INBOX TODAY... DIVORCE AGREEMENT—; The person who wrote this is a college student. Perhaps there is hope for us after all. DIVORCE AGREEMENT THIS IS SO INCREDIBLY WELL PUT AND I CAN HARDLY BELIEVE IT'S BY A YOUNG PERSON, A STUDENT!!! WHATEVER HE RUNS FOR, I'LL VOTE FOR HIM. Dear American liberals, leftists, social progressives, socialists, Marxists and Obama supporters, et al: We have stuck together since the late 1950's for the sake of the kids, but the whole of this latest election process has made me realize that I want a divorce. I know we tolerated each other for many years for the sake of future generations, but sadly, this relationship has clearly run its course. Our two ideological sides of America cannot and will not ever agree on what is right for us all, so let's just end it on friendly terms. We can smile and chalk it up irreconcilable differences and go our own way. Here is a our separation agreement: Our two groups can equitably divide up the country by landmass each taking a similar portion. That will be the difficult part, but I am sure our two sides can come to a friendly agreement. After that, it should be relatively easy! Our respective representatives can effortlessly divide other assets since both sides have such distinct and disparate tastes. We don't like redistributive taxes so you can keep them. You are welcome to the liberal judges and the ACLU. Since you hate guns and war, we'll take our firearms, the cops, the NRA and the military. We'll take the nasty, smelly oil industry and the coal mines, and you can go with wind, solar and biodiesel. You can keep Oprah, Michael Moore and Rosie O'Donnell. You are, however, responsible for finding a bio-diesel vehicle big enough to move all three of them. We'll keep capitalism, greedy corporations, pharmaceutical companies, Wal-Mart and Wall Street. You can have your beloved lifelong welfare dwellers, food stamps, homeless, homeboys, hippies, druggies and illegal aliens. We'll keep the hot Alaskan hockey moms, greedy CEO's and rednecks. We'll keep Bill O?Reilly, and Bibles and give you NBC and Hollywood . You can make nice with Iran and Palestine and we'll retain the right to invade and hammer places that threaten us. You can have the peaceniks and war protesters. When our allies or our way of life are under assault, we'll help provide them security. We'll keep our Judeo-Christian values. You are welcome to Islam, Scientology, Humanism, political correctness and Shirley McClain. You can also have the U.N. but we will no longer be paying the bill. We'll keep the SUV's, pickup trucks and oversized luxury cars. You can take every Volt and Leaf you can find. You can give everyone healthcare if you can find any practicing doctors. we'll continue to believe healthcare is a luxury and not a right. We'll keep "The Battle Hymn of the Republic" and "The National Anthem." I'm sure you'll be happy to substitute "Imagine", "I'd Like to Teach the World to Sing", "Kum Ba Ya" or "We Are the World". We'll practice trickle-down economics and you can continue to give trickle up poverty your best shot. Since it often so offends you, we'll keep our history, our name and our flag. Would you agree to this? If so, please pass it along to other like-minded liberal and conservative patriots and if you do not agree, just hit delete. In the spirit of friendly parting, I'll bet you might think about which one of us will need whose help in 15 years. Sincerely, John J. Wall Law Student and an American P.S. Also, please take Ted Turner, Sean Penn, Martin & Charlie Sheen, Barbara Streisand, & ( Hanoi ) Jane Fonda with you. p.S.S. And you won't have to press 1 for English when you call our country. Forward This Every Time You Get It ! Let's Keep This Going, Maybe Some Of It Will Start Sinking In!! |
| johnpaulca 12,036 posts msg #108706 - Ignore johnpaulca |
11/6/2012 11:51:46 PM The guy with the losing record voted back in for another 4-yrs....heaven help you guys. |
| karennma 8,057 posts msg #108710 - Ignore karennma |
11/7/2012 9:36:50 AM Obama - 1st 4 yrs >>> DOW 6600 to 13,000 Obama 2nd 4 yrs >>> DOW 20,000 !! |
| johnpaulca 12,036 posts msg #108713 - Ignore johnpaulca |
11/7/2012 10:38:28 AM Market doesn't think so...we needed a day like today shake out the weak hands. |
| karennma 8,057 posts msg #108714 - Ignore karennma |
11/7/2012 10:43:06 AM NFLX is rockin' .. as usual. Always following a different drummer. |
| TheRumpledOne 6,529 posts msg #109972 - Ignore TheRumpledOne |
1/8/2013 4:18:44 PM Ignore/Old-News Strategy By Robert Ringer - Tuesday, January 8, 2013 Although many have long believed it to be a fait accompli, it became official last Thursday: The Republican Party died. Any notion that Republicans had finally learned their lesson and were ready to start acting like the party of small government, less spending, less regulation, and more individual freedom was quashed when they overwhelmingly reelected Barack Obama’s bootlicking valet, John Jellyfish Boehner, as Speaker of the House. Which means that, aside from the obvious problems associated with Boehner’s being in charge of the store, he remains second in the line of presidential succession! Can you imagine a President Boehner in the White House, scurrying about each day in an effort to carry out the wishes of his Dirty Dem masters? Republicans are the most predictable people on earth. Did anyone seriously doubt they would once again put John Boehner in a position to sell conservatives down the river? C’mon … please … it’s their M.O. Did anyone seriously doubt they would once again give away the store in “resolving” the phony fiscal-cliff crisis? And does anyone seriously doubt they will once again raise the debt ceiling to give Obama plenty of latitude to continue to increase spending — and, in so doing, increase, rather than decrease, the deficit and the national debt? The reality is that the debt ceiling will be raised again … and again … and again — with no meaningful cuts in government spending. Bad News Barry has already made that clear. And when Barry huffs and puffs, Republicans tremble and have a tendency to run for the nearest rest room. Of course, it doesn’t really matter whether or not Republicans once again accommodate Obama in his quest to transform America into a banana republic, because it’s pretty clear that he will, if necessary, simply hand down an executive order to raise the debt ceiling. And why not? If GOP wimps are willing to let him get away with it, he’s home free. Obama’s message is both clear and bold: “You want more spending cuts? Great, just so we offset them with higher taxes.” Huh? The man is a master at turning things upside down. If you cut spending, why do you need to raise taxes? If most Americans weren’t sleepwalking, they would be asking, “Why don’t we lower taxes and offset the decreased revenue with more spending cuts?” In just four years, Obama has succeeded in establishing a soft dictatorship right before our very eyes. But it would not have been possible without the cooperation of his Republican enablers. After all, these are the folks who forfeited two presidential elections by nominating McCain I and McCain II to run against Obama in 2008 and 2012. The same folks who have sent repeated messages to the Emperor of Envy that they will not challenge his dictatorial overreach, no matter how unconstitutional it may be. So, happy days are here again — hire more IRS agents, slam the printing presses into high gear, and continue to beg China for just one more fix. How long can all this last? Probably until the rioting begins, which will come, if at all, only after most people realize that even though they thought they were getting the best of the collectivist con, their money is worthless and their retirement prospects are nonexistent. All this has been brought to us via the Ignore/Old-News Strategy, which is similar to the New-Baseline Strategy. In my article on the latter topic a couple of years ago, I pointed out that the New-Baseline Strategy is the key to progressivism: Get a bill passed (e.g., Obamacare), establish a new baseline, then, in the future, restrict all debate to what the percentage of increase should be each year for that particular bill. And if anyone dares to oppose any increase in spending, vilify him as cruel and calloused, which almost never fails to bring him to his apologetic knees. And guess what? It works! It works because it is supported by humanoids noted for their small gonads, Styrofoam spines, and a strong desire to live like royalty off taxpayer money. Remember when Tricky Dick Nixon got caught with his political panties around his ankles? Oh, he put up a front for a while, but when the dastardly Democrats kept pressing forward with making Watergate a criminal issue, he thought the better of it, gave a Napoleonic salute to his nonexistent supporters from the steps of his presidential helicopter, then disappeared into the political sunset mumbling, “I’m not a crook.” Of course, all this was made easier by the fact that most Republicans actually joined forces with their Democratic masters in their campaign to destroy Nixon. But when Obama violates the Constitution, he doesn’t need to worry about getting the Nixon treatment. Whenever trouble looms on the horizon, he simply employs the Ignore/Old-News Strategy, which works in tandem with the New-Baseline Strategy. Got a problem with Benghazi-gate? Ignore it. Got a problem with Fast and Furious? Ignore it. Got a problem with your spiritual mentor being a notorious American hater? Ignore it. Got a problem with your birth certificate? Ignore it. Got a problem with millions of suffering civilians being angry over your giving Joe Biden and members of Congress pay raises? Ignore it. Then, as time passes, anyone who dares to bring up such toxic issues is shouted down as a partisan hate monger, a racist, or an enemy of the middleclass and admonished for bringing up issues that are “old news” (old news being defined as anything that happened more than a week ago). And once something is old news, no matter how criminal it may be, it’s no longer relevant, right? The Dems have it down to a science: Got a scandal? No problem. Simply ignore it, then, shortly thereafter, declare it to be “old news.” And since the Dirty Dems are masters at establishing new baselines, each new illegal act taken by Obama becomes accepted as the status quo. You may argue that Sinbama and his Forty Thieves are the epitome of evil, but you can’t deny that they’re brilliant at their craft: theft and deception. Now, shhh … not too loud. We wouldn’t want Republicans to discover that they are being laughed at. After all, they have to focus on how to once again raise the debt ceiling in a way that will fool low-information voters into believing they got big spending cuts in return. You have permission to reprint this article so long as you place the following wording at the end of the article: Copyright © 2012 Robert Ringer ROBERT RINGER is a New York Times #1 bestselling author and host of the highly acclaimed Liberty Education Interview Series, which features interviews with top political, economic, and social leaders. He has appeared on Fox News, Fox Business, The Tonight Show, Today, The Dennis Miller Show, Good Morning America, The Lars Larson Show, ABC Nightline, and The Charlie Rose Show, and has been the subject of feature articles in such major publications as Time, People, The Wall Street Journal, Fortune, Barron's, and The New York Times. |
| TheRumpledOne 6,529 posts msg #110493 - Ignore TheRumpledOne |
1/24/2013 7:17:50 PM The Dilemma: Lie or Lose By Robert Ringer - Thursday, January 24, 2013 Ah, my … how time flies when you’re having fun. It seems like yesterday that we were crying tears of hope and change. The hope is gone, but there are still plenty of tears over the change. How well I remember Thomas Friedman’s article in The New York Times during the 2008 presidential campaign titled “Who will tell the people?” Said Friedman, “We don’t need a president who is tough enough to withstand the lies of his opponents. We need a president who is tough enough to tell the truth to the American people.” Based on his words, I assume Friedman ended up not voting. Of course, by now everyone this side of Hugo Chavez realizes that the Kenyan guy who won is tough enough to tell the truth. It’s just that he chose not to, because he knew that the truth would have been a losing hand. Once in office, he was still tough enough to tell the truth, but, again, he chose not to because he knew it would impede his efforts to carry out his agenda. Then came the 2012 presidential race. I imagine most people naively believed that Obama couldn’t outdo his 2008 festival of fabrications, but he sure fooled them. This time around, he lied with a Madoffian style and grace that made people forget that his first term in office showcased the most failed presidency in U.S. history. But on the Republican side, it was a different story. The GOP thought they’d try something new, so they nominated a paper mache mannequin to run for president. Unfortunately, as one would expect from a mannequin, he couldn’t spell. He thought tough was spelled s-o-f-t. It was obvious from the outset that Mannequin Mitt was not going to stick his neck out and offer up even small morsels of truth. Establishment Republicans kept insisting that Romney was a man of character (Ann Coulter even gushed that he was a “Mormon square”), but, in the end, he couldn’t quite muster up the character to tell voters the truth. Too bad, because if he had, he probably would have won handily. Before the 2008 election, I wrote that no matter who you voted for, the moral and economic decline of the U.S. would continue, though faster with Barack Obama at the controls rather than John McMush. I also said that the next president would preside over more and bigger disasters than any president in U.S. history. I was right on both counts. But I also wrote that since there was no realistic way to solve any of the nation’s major economic problems, whoever won the election would receive most of the blame. In this case, I was, for the most part, wrong. True, after a year or two, several million people were jarred out of their decades-long slumber and realized they had been scammed by Commie Obammie. But most people who voted for BHO happily went back for seconds — unemployment benefits, disability payments, food stamps, etc. In fairness, BHO sent the American public many clear messages about his intentions, but it’s hard to process information when your mind is focused on rushing out to pick up a fresh supply of food stamps. In any event, it doesn’t matter what the Duplicitous Despot says if most people pretend as though they didn’t hear it. But forget about Obama. We already know what to expect from a Saul Alinsky disciple. The question is, which Republican will finally step forward and tell the people the truth? Unfortunately, in today’s morally decadent America, politicians realize that the constituency for cutting entitlements is a small minority, so they have only two choices: lie or lose. Just ask Ron Paul, who was brushed aside by the media (including Fox News!) and the Republican Party for consistently refusing to deceive voters. Conclusion: Best to forget about politicians and focus on doing what you, as an individual, can do to combat tyranny. And the first step toward that end is to acknowledge the reality that BHO is not just another far-left guy like FDR, LBJ, or Jimmy Carter. None of them had a Marxist agenda. True, FDR pushed for dictatorial rule, but when Congress and the Supreme Court let him know they were drawing a constitutional line, he backed off. Do you really believe Barack Obama will ever back off? Wake up, America! It’s not in his playbook. The clock is ticking on the American Empire as the “dreams from my father” continue to become ever more entrenched. Gun confiscation, Obamacare, and runaway inflation, to name but a few of BHO’s atrocities — are moving ahead full steam. Oh … and so, too, is the possibility of a third, fourth, and fifth term — and beyond! — for the media-invented president whose arrogance now has him focused on making 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue his permanent address. Laugh at your own peril. After all, in a “free” country you have a right to go on believing whatever you want to believe. But, at the same time, you should recognize that reality is not discriminatory. Nature does not accept ignorance as an excuse for harboring false beliefs. It metes out negative consequences just as harshly to a person who is well-meaning but misinformed (or naïve) as to one who is malevolent and stubborn. Regardless, the one thing none of us can complain about is boredom. Thanks to Bolshevik Barry, we do live in exciting times. You have permission to reprint this article so long as you place the following wording at the end of the article: Copyright © 2013 Robert Ringer ROBERT RINGER is a New York Times #1 bestselling author and host of the highly acclaimed Liberty Education Interview Series, which features interviews with top political, economic, and social leaders. He has appeared on Fox News, Fox Business, The Tonight Show, Today, The Dennis Miller Show, Good Morning America, The Lars Larson Show, ABC Nightline, and The Charlie Rose Show, and has been the subject of feature articles in such major publications as Time, People, The Wall Street Journal, Fortune, Barron's, and The New York Times. |
| TheRumpledOne 6,529 posts msg #110590 - Ignore TheRumpledOne |
1/26/2013 6:38:08 PM THIS IS THE BEST WORDED PRO-GUN ARGUMENT I HAVE EVER READ! Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it. In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some. When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force. The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender. There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a armed mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat--it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed. People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly. Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level. The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable. When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation... and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act. By Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret.) So the greatest civilization is one where all citizens are equally armed and can only be persuaded, never forced. |
| TheRumpledOne 6,529 posts msg #110900 - Ignore TheRumpledOne |
2/2/2013 6:52:33 PM Who’s the Purist of Them All? By Robert Ringer - Tuesday, January 29, 2013 Today’s galling criminal behavior in Washington has brought back some old memories for me. With the publication of my book Restoring the American Dream, which openly promoted the Libertarian Party, I created quite a stir in libertarian circles. So much so that I was asked to give the keynote address at the 1979 Libertarian Party Presidential Nominating Convention. Ed Clark was the Libertarian Party presidential nominee that year and David Koch (of Koch Brothers fame) was his running mate. The master of ceremonies was actor Orson Bean, who years later would become the father-in-law of Andrew Breitbart (who was ten-years-old at the time!). Small world, indeed. All the attention was pretty heady stuff for a young, newly minted anarchist like me. There was no doubt in my naïve mind that it was just a matter of time until the Libertarian Party would overwhelm the Demopublican Party and put an end to government tyranny. It was also at the 1979 convention that a young medical doctor by the name of Ron Paul introduced himself to me. Little did I know that he was to become a beacon of hope for millions of Americans over the next three decades. A few weeks after the convention I invited a number of noteworthy libertarians to a dinner party at my home. With my newfound enthusiasm for libertarianism, I wanted to pick the brains of some of the smartest libertarian minds in the country. At one point, I said to John Hospers, the Libertarian Party’s first presidential candidate back in 1972, “Given the realities of human nature, even if the Libertarian Party someday got control of the government, wouldn’t libertarian officeholders become just as corrupt as Democrats and Republicans?” To which he responded, “Yes, it’s human nature. But it might give us twenty-five years or more of much smaller government and more freedom before they reached the level of corruption that the Democrats and Republicans are at today, which would give us time to try to come up with a better system.” It was refreshing to hear an ideological giant like Hospers talk in realistic terms. But, unfortunately, the Libertarian Party never got off the ground, so my hypothetical question became irrelevant. And that very night, as I listened to the heated intellectual sniping and debating over dinner, I began to suspect, for the first time, that the Libertarian Party might not make it. At one point, in response to one of my guests extolling the virtues of Murray Rothbard’s anarchist beliefs — specifically alluding to his advocacy of private police forces — Nathaniel Branden tersely shot back that Murray Rothbard would be the first one to complain about a lack of police protection if he were in trouble. As I’ve watched the Libertarian Party struggle to survive over the years, I’ve often thought about that evening back in 1979. Even in 2012, when probably half the population had awakened to the reality that the U.S. government was an out-of-control criminal enterprise, Gary Johnson — a two-time state governor — garnered only 1 percent of the vote for the Libertarian Party. That was just shy of Ed Clark’s 1.1 percent three decades earlier! Talk about stagnant growth. I have long believed that 40 percent or more of the voting public is, at heart, libertarian, even if they aren’t all conscious of it. But the problem is that the message never gets through to them because both uppercase and lowercase libertarians are too busy bickering over who is the most pure. Like children throwing temper tantrums, they constantly attack other libertarians for not being true libertarians — or true anarchists. To hear many of them talk, they would have you believe that only they are ideologically pure and that every other libertarian is flawed. Their childish arrogance sometimes makes me want to yawn. Which brings me to the political bomb John Hospers dropped on true-believing libertarians, just prior to the 2004 election, in the form of an “Open Letter to All Libertarians.” Said Hospers, in part: The American electorate is not yet psychologically prepared for a completely libertarian society. A transition to such a society takes time and effort, and involves altering the mind-set of most Americans, who labor under a plethora of economic fallacies and political misconceptions. … If the election is as close as it was in 2000, libertarian voters may make the difference as to who wins in various critical “Battle Ground” states and therefore the presidency itself. That is the situation in which we find ourselves in 2004. And that is why I believe voting for George W. Bush is the most libertarian thing we can do. Hospers’ words caused self-anointed “purists” to go ballistic. But even though I, too, disagreed with his position, I resisted the temptation to fall into the “not-pure-enough” trap. I mean, if you label a liberty legend like John Hospers impure, who in the world qualifies as being pure enough? From my firsthand experience, the answer is no one. We all make mistakes, but if we bring out the guillotine every time a strong advocate of liberty says or does something ill advised — or that we don’t agree with — who will be left? As Hospers pointed out in his letter, even the mother of objectivism, Ayn Rand, once opined that she wouldn’t mind if taxes were 80 percent “if you need it for defense.” Was Ayn Rand impure? Yes. But so is every other liberty advocate I’ve ever met. And how about those two young fellows at the 1979 Libertarian Party convention — Ron Paul and Robert Ringer? I have it on good authority that both of them are strong pro-life advocates. Does believing in the sanctity of life, which is a basic tenet of libertarianism — qualify anarchist-leaning libertarians to challenge their ideological credentials? In a perfect world, I’d be an anarchist not only in theory, but in reality. But the rational side of me tells me that anarchism would open the door to my being victimized by the same criminals who now rule us. With anarchism, there would be no laws to even slow them down. That’s why I reluctantly believe that we need laws to protect our lives and property. Unfortunately, most of today’s laws violate our lives and property. The real issue is man’s imperfection. It is important to be vigilant about reminding ourselves not to inadvertently stray toward tyranny. But, while doing so, let’s not label those who are 90 percent in agreement with us as “not pure enough.” Lambasting bootlickers like John McCain, Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, or Orrin Hatch — sure, they’re fair game. But accusing people like Ron Paul, Rand Paul, Jim DeMint, or Allen West of not being pure enough is fodder for the barbarians. Give me a break. If someone favors getting rid of unemployment benefits, food stamps, minimum-wage laws, and the income tax, I’m happy to have them on my side. We can debate things like Roe v. Wade and how to best provide for a national defense at a later date, but right now those who sincerely believe that liberty is preferable to tyranny would do well to join forces and focus on the important job ahead — destroying the moral barbarians who have pillaged America. The habit of trashing people because they don’t meet one’s arbitrary standards for purity is a result of both arrogance and ignorance. And arrogance of the ignorant is a human flaw that I, for one, am incapable of tolerating. You have permission to reprint this article so long as you place the following wording at the end of the article: Copyright © 2013 Robert Ringer ROBERT RINGER is a New York Times #1 bestselling author and host of the highly acclaimed Liberty Education Interview Series, which features interviews with top political, economic, and social leaders. He has appeared on Fox News, Fox Business, The Tonight Show, Today, The Dennis Miller Show, Good Morning America, The Lars Larson Show, ABC Nightline, and The Charlie Rose Show, and has been the subject of feature articles in such major publications as Time, People, The Wall Street Journal, Fortune, Barron's, and The New York Times. |
| StockFetcher Forums · General Discussion · POLITICS GOES HERE | << 1 ... 71 72 73 74 75 ... 76 >>Post Follow-up |
Copyright 2022 - Vestyl Software L.L.C.•Terms of Service | License | Questions or comments? Contact Us
EOD Data sources: DDFPlus & CSI Data
Quotes delayed during active market hours. Delay times are at least 15 mins for NASDAQ, 20 mins for NYSE and Amex. Delayed intraday data provided by DDFPlus