Political Opinion

[abrsive]

[QUOTE=“Samir Alibaba;581179”] Uhm… So people didnt kill each other before the advent of widespread gun use…? Come on that is the laziest argument and train of thought one can hold.[/QUOTE]

Wow… Another genius. I’m loving it!!

I suggest that you learn to read, before chiming in… Either that, or control your urge to jump into subjects that escape your capacity to make a point. So since you failed to even make a point, there is nothing to respond to. Only, that I never said that people only started killing each other when guns were invented, so it can never be a lazy argument. Although, I must admit that your 3rd grade debating skills are very amusing.

[Samir_Alibaba]

Wow… Another genius. I’m loving it!!

I suggest that you learn to read, before chiming in… Either that, or control your urge to jump into subjects that escape your capacity to make a point. So since you failed to even make a point, there is nothing to respond to. Only, that I never said that people only started killing each other when guns were invented, so it can never be a lazy argument. Although, I must admit that your 3rd grade debating skills are very amusing.

Lol… Classic Internet warrior technique of topic diversion when faced with defending an indefensible position

“I find you amusing” is the cliche of the Internet troll. Happy trolling.

[JohnLeonard]

Wow… Another genius. I’m loving it!!

I suggest that you learn to read, before chiming in… Either that, or control your urge to jump into subjects that escape your capacity to make a point. So since you failed to even make a point, there is nothing to respond to. Only, that I never said that people only started killing each other when guns were invented, so it can never be a lazy argument. Although, I must admit that your 3rd grade debating skills are very amusing.

You state a position, fail to to support it by using fact, example or by making a reasonable argument and use a personal attack instead.

A clear sign of desperate intellectual capitulation.

[peterma]

Deleted post

[Clint]

The fix is in.

[I]The New York Times[/I] — [B]principal sock-puppet of the Democrat Party[/B] — has published a propaganda piece, disguised as investigative journalism, purporting to corroborate the Obama/HillaryClinton version of events at the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11, 2012. The dual purpose of this propaganda piece is to try to save the failed presidency of Barack Obama, and to grease the skids for Hillary’s presidential run in 2016.

According to the Obama/Clinton/Times version of history, al Qaeda had nothing to do with the attack on our Consulate in Benghazi; and, therefore, the Obama Regime bears no responsibility for failing to anticipate, and failing to prevent, the attack. Rather, the attack was all because of some nasty Arab-American guy and his nasty little video mocking Mohammad.

Yeah, right. Republican [I]and Democrat[/I] congressmen and senators on the House and Senate Intelligence Committees know better — none of them disputes the involvement of al Qaeda in the planning and execution of the attack, and none of them cites the video as a cause of the attack.

Here is a link to the full 7,000-word [I]New York Times[/I] article —

A Deadly Mix in Benghazi - The New York Times

Here is what [I]The Weekly Standard[/I] has to say about the [I]Times[/I] piece —

The New York Times Whitewashes Benghazi | The Weekly Standard

And here is Rep. Darrell Issa’s response to the [I]Times[/I] article, as reported by NBC —

Issa stands by claims of al Qaeda-affiliation in Benghazi attacks - Press Pass

[JohnLeonard]

@Clint

The fix is in.

The New York Times — principal sock-puppet of the Democrat Party — has published a propaganda piece, disguised as investigative journalism, purporting to corroborate the Obama/HillaryClinton version of events at the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11, 2012. The dual purpose of this propaganda piece is to try to save the failed presidency of Barack Obama, and to grease the skids for Hillary’s presidential run in 2016.

According to the Obama/Clinton/Times version of history, al Qaeda had nothing to do with the attack on our Consulate in Benghazi; and, therefore, the Obama Regime bears no responsibility for failing to anticipate, and failing to prevent, the attack. Rather, the attack was all because of some nasty Arab-American guy and his nasty little video mocking Mohammad.

Yeah, right. Republican and Democrat congressmen and senators on the House and Senate Intelligence Committees know better — none of them disputes the involvement of al Qaeda in the planning and execution of the attack, and none of them cites the video as a cause of the attack.

Here is a link to the full 7,000-word New York Times article —

A Deadly Mix in Benghazi - The New York Times

Here is what The Weekly Standard has to say about the Times piece —

The New York Times Whitewashes Benghazi | The Weekly Standard

And here is Rep. Darrell Issa’s response to the Times article, as reported by NBC —

Issa stands by claims of al Qaeda-affiliation in Benghazi attacks - Press Pass

The New York Times is a joke – even Democrats don’t rely on it for news or talking points any longer as their “journalism” is laughable. It has already long been established that the video in question played no role whatsoever in sparking protests as there simply were no protests in Ben Ghazi – only coordinated attacks. Even Factcheck.org, a left-leaning organization, says it didn’t happen that way. The CIA testified that the administration’s timeline is wrong and a video had no role in fomenting attacks. Even the alphabet networks (all the way on the political left) have long since quit trying to link the events in Ben Ghazi to a Youtube video that only had 200 views at the time.

A despicable SoS Clinton, when frustrated about her testimony about whether or not a video had led to protests not being permitted to go unchallenged remarked, “What difference – at this point, what difference does it make?”

The administration backed off the video claims after that. I guess no one told the Times.

[tonyro44]

It is sooo said that such a high alert date like 9/11 of every year is not taken with extra precaution in all our embassies. These are basically 101 tactics, yet we can’t even do that right.

@JohnLeonard

The New York Times is a joke – even Democrats don’t rely on it for news or talking points any longer as their “journalism” is laughable. It has already long been established that the video in question played no role whatsoever in sparking protests as there simply were no protests in Ben Ghazi – only coordinated attacks. Even Factcheck.org, a left-leaning organization, says it didn’t happen that way. The CIA testified that the administration’s timeline is wrong and a video had no role in fomenting attacks. Even the alphabet networks (all the way on the political left) have long since quit trying to link the events in Ben Ghazi to a Youtube video that only had 200 views at the time.

A despicable SoS Clinton, when frustrated about her testimony about whether or not a video had led to protests not being permitted to go unchallenged remarked, “What difference – at this point, what difference does it make?”

The administration backed off the video claims after that. I guess no one told the Times.

[JohnLeonard]

It is sooo said that such a high alert date like 9/11 of every year is not taken with extra precaution in all our embassies. These are basically 101 tactics, yet we can’t even do that right.

Especially when the ambassador is pleading in cable after cable to Clinton and the White House to increase security. Then their response is: “…at this point, what difference does it make.”

[danygibb]

Political issues now are really updated in every nation so we should also know more about it.

[wigglez]

Medicare paid "excessive" $172M for penis pumps over five-year span: Report

hehe

[Clint]

The NSA has collected the “phone records” of more than 120 million Americans. These phone records — the so-called “meta-data” — supposedly contain information on who called whom and when, [I]but not actual recordings of the telephone calls.[/I] If you believe that, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

Today a government group called the [I]Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board[/I] issued their findings that the NSA’s telephone surveillance program is illegal, that the program should be ended, and that the phone records already collected should be destroyed.

Obama disagrees. Obama, it seems, covets the treasure-trove of information that the NSA has collected, and wants them to keep right on collecting. Obama knows next to nothing about national security (think “Benghasi”) — so, what exactly does he have in mind for the mother-of-all-evesdropping-programs? Whatever it is, it can’t be good.

Here is the first half of an [I][B]AP[/B][/I] news feed from a few hours ago. [I][B]AP[/B][/I] does not provide links to their news feeds, and they “prohibit” any copying or re-posting of their stuff. Tough. I’m doing it, anyway.

Jan. 23, 2014 5:18 PM ET

Government panel urges end to phone data spying

By STEPHEN BRAUN

WASHINGTON (AP) — A government review panel warned Thursday that the National Security Agency’s daily collection of Americans’ phone records is illegal and recommended that President Barack Obama abandon the program and destroy the hundreds of millions of phone records it has already collected.

The recommendations by the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board go further than Obama is willing to accept and increase pressure on Congress to make changes.

The panel’s 234-page report included dissents from two of the board’s five members — former Bush administration national security lawyers who recommended that the government keep collecting the phone records. The board described key parts of its report to Obama this month before he announced his plans last week to change the government’s surveillance activities.

In that speech, Obama said the bulk phone collection program would continue for the time being. He directed the Justice Department and intelligence officials to find ways to end the government’s control over the phone data. He also insisting on close supervision by a secretive federal intelligence court and reducing the breadth of phone records the NSA can investigate. Phone companies have said they do not want to take responsibility for overseeing the data under standards set by the NSA.

In addition to concluding that the daily collection of phone records was illegal, the board also determined that the practice was ineffective.

“We have not identified a single instance involving a threat to the United States in which the program made a concrete difference in the outcome of a counterterrorism investigation,” it said, and added, “We are aware of no instance in which the program directly contributed to the discovery of a previously unknown terrorist plot or the disruption of a terrorist attack.”

It said the NSA should instead seek individual records relevant to terror cases directly from phone service providers under existing laws.

“Given the limited results, we concluded the program should be ended,” said board member James Dempsey of the Center for Democracy and Technology, a civil liberties group. Dempsey and another board member, former chief federal appeals court judge Patricia Wald, also said the phone sweeps did not appear to have clear or strong legal grounding in the USA Patriot Act — the statute overseeing the government’s surveillance activities.

“We have to be careful that secret law does not creep into our jurisprudence,” Wald said.

The board wrote that the phone surveillance did not have a “viable legal foundation” under the Patriot Act, which was used to provide legal backing for the operation after it was secretly authorized by President George W. Bush. The board also said the surveillance raised constitutional concerns about unreasonable searches, free speech and freedom of the press. Two federal judges have split in recent rulings over the constitutionality of the government collecting Americans’ phone records in such a wholesale way.

The White House disagreed with the oversight board. “The administration believes the program is lawful,” said national security spokeswoman Caitlin Hayden. She added that Obama “believes we can and should make changes in the program that will give the American people greater confidence in it.”

The board’s recommendation to delete its copies of everyone’s phone records is one area that Obama sidestepped in his speech — what to do with the mountainous electronic database amassed by the NSA since shortly after the 9/11 attacks. National security officials have a legal review to be finished by March should decide how long to keep the phone records.

The NSA’s surveillance programs and other data mining operations came to light last year, drawing intense criticism after revelations fueled by an estimated 1.7 million documents taken by former NSA systems analyst Edward Snowden and handed over to several journalists.

---

Earlier this afternoon, Edward Snowden, participated in an online webinar in which he answered selected questions previously tweeted to him. Snowden is the whistle-blower who first alerted the world to the extent of the NSA’s telephone surveillance program, and who is now hiding out in Russia because the Obama regime wants him silenced, prosecuted and jailed.

Here are some quotes from Edward Snowden, excerpted from his webinar:

“I think a person should be able to dial a number, make a purchase, send an SMS, write an email, or visit a website without having to think about what it’s going to look like on their permanent record.”

---

“The NSA and the rest of the US Intelligence Community is exceptionally well positioned to meet our intelligence requirements through targeted surveillance — the same way we’ve always done it — without resorting to the mass surveillance of entire populations.”

---

"As I’ve said before, properly implemented strong encryption works. What you have to worry about are the endpoints. If someone can steal your keys (or the pre-encryption plaintext), no amount of cryptography will protect you.

“However, that doesn’t mean end-to-end crypto is a lost cause. By combining robust endpoint security with transport security, people can have much greater confidence in their day to day communications.”

---

And here is a link to the entire webinar —

Live Q&A with Edward Snowden: Thursday 23rd January, 8pm GMT, 3pm EST | Free Snowden

[tonyro44]

Great piece thank you soo much Clint.

The NSA has collected the “phone records” of more than 120 million Americans. These phone records — the so-called “meta-data” — supposedly contain information on who called whom and when, [I]but not actual recordings of the telephone calls.[/I] If you believe that, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

Today a government group called the [I]Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board[/I] issued their findings that the NSA’s telephone surveillance program is illegal, that the program should be ended, and that the phone records already collected should be destroyed.

Obama disagrees. Obama, it seems, covets the treasure-trove of information that the NSA has collected, and wants them to keep right on collecting. Obama knows next to nothing about national security (think “Benghasi”) — so, what exactly does he have in mind for the mother-of-all-evesdropping-programs? Whatever it is, it can’t be good.

Here is the first half of an [I][B]AP[/B][/I] news feed from a few hours ago. [I][B]AP[/B][/I] does not provide links to their news feeds, and they “prohibit” any copying or re-posting of their stuff. Tough. I’m doing it, anyway.

Jan. 23, 2014 5:18 PM ET

Government panel urges end to phone data spying

By STEPHEN BRAUN

WASHINGTON (AP) — A government review panel warned Thursday that the National Security Agency’s daily collection of Americans’ phone records is illegal and recommended that President Barack Obama abandon the program and destroy the hundreds of millions of phone records it has already collected.

The recommendations by the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board go further than Obama is willing to accept and increase pressure on Congress to make changes.

The panel’s 234-page report included dissents from two of the board’s five members — former Bush administration national security lawyers who recommended that the government keep collecting the phone records. The board described key parts of its report to Obama this month before he announced his plans last week to change the government’s surveillance activities.

In that speech, Obama said the bulk phone collection program would continue for the time being. He directed the Justice Department and intelligence officials to find ways to end the government’s control over the phone data. He also insisting on close supervision by a secretive federal intelligence court and reducing the breadth of phone records the NSA can investigate. Phone companies have said they do not want to take responsibility for overseeing the data under standards set by the NSA.

In addition to concluding that the daily collection of phone records was illegal, the board also determined that the practice was ineffective.

“We have not identified a single instance involving a threat to the United States in which the program made a concrete difference in the outcome of a counterterrorism investigation,” it said, and added, “We are aware of no instance in which the program directly contributed to the discovery of a previously unknown terrorist plot or the disruption of a terrorist attack.”

It said the NSA should instead seek individual records relevant to terror cases directly from phone service providers under existing laws.

“Given the limited results, we concluded the program should be ended,” said board member James Dempsey of the Center for Democracy and Technology, a civil liberties group. Dempsey and another board member, former chief federal appeals court judge Patricia Wald, also said the phone sweeps did not appear to have clear or strong legal grounding in the USA Patriot Act — the statute overseeing the government’s surveillance activities.

“We have to be careful that secret law does not creep into our jurisprudence,” Wald said.

The board wrote that the phone surveillance did not have a “viable legal foundation” under the Patriot Act, which was used to provide legal backing for the operation after it was secretly authorized by President George W. Bush. The board also said the surveillance raised constitutional concerns about unreasonable searches, free speech and freedom of the press. Two federal judges have split in recent rulings over the constitutionality of the government collecting Americans’ phone records in such a wholesale way.

The White House disagreed with the oversight board. “The administration believes the program is lawful,” said national security spokeswoman Caitlin Hayden. She added that Obama “believes we can and should make changes in the program that will give the American people greater confidence in it.”

The board’s recommendation to delete its copies of everyone’s phone records is one area that Obama sidestepped in his speech — what to do with the mountainous electronic database amassed by the NSA since shortly after the 9/11 attacks. National security officials have a legal review to be finished by March should decide how long to keep the phone records.

The NSA’s surveillance programs and other data mining operations came to light last year, drawing intense criticism after revelations fueled by an estimated 1.7 million documents taken by former NSA systems analyst Edward Snowden and handed over to several journalists.

---

Earlier this afternoon, Edward Snowden, participated in an online webinar in which he answered selected questions previously tweeted to him. Snowden is the whistle-blower who first alerted the world to the extent of the NSA’s telephone surveillance program, and who is now hiding out in Russia because the Obama regime wants him silenced, prosecuted and jailed.

Here are some quotes from Edward Snowden, excerpted from his webinar:

“I think a person should be able to dial a number, make a purchase, send an SMS, write an email, or visit a website without having to think about what it’s going to look like on their permanent record.”

---

“The NSA and the rest of the US Intelligence Community is exceptionally well positioned to meet our intelligence requirements through targeted surveillance — the same way we’ve always done it — without resorting to the mass surveillance of entire populations.”

---

"As I’ve said before, properly implemented strong encryption works. What you have to worry about are the endpoints. If someone can steal your keys (or the pre-encryption plaintext), no amount of cryptography will protect you.

“However, that doesn’t mean end-to-end crypto is a lost cause. By combining robust endpoint security with transport security, people can have much greater confidence in their day to day communications.”

---

And here is a link to the entire webinar —

Live Q&A with Edward Snowden: Thursday 23rd January, 8pm GMT, 3pm EST | Free Snowden

[Clint]

My previous post concerned the NSA’s surveillance of telephone traffic within the U.S.

Copied-and-pasted below is an article from the same news agency on the collection of [B]internet traffic[/B] by the NSA (and by the spy agencies of other countries, as well) within the U.S. and globally. Specifically, the article deals with the release of information from [I]Google, Microsoft, Yahoo, Facebook, LinkedIn[/I] and [I]Tumblr[/I] on how much data those companies have been required to turn over to the government.

This article is part of the “hosted” news feed of the [I]Associated Press ([B]AP[/B]).[/I] And, as I have mentioned previously, [I]AP[/I] prohibits re-posting of their hosted material anywhere, including here in this forum. So, if this post disappears in the future, you can thank [I]AP[/I] for shutting it down.

I’m re-posting this article, in defiance of the [I]AP[/I] prohibition, because I think every member of this forum — every citizen of the world, in fact — should be made aware of the extent of the government’s spying on ordinary citizens. And I think we all should seriously question the constitutionality of the secret FISA court.

And I hope that we all will come to appreciate the service rendered to this nation by Edward Snowden in exposing these spying programs.

Feb. 4, 2014 3:18 AM ET

Internet firms release data on NSA requests

By STEPHEN BRAUN and MICHAEL LIEDTKE

WASHINGTON (AP) — Major technology firms have released new data on how often they are ordered to turn over customer information to the government for secret national security investigations, resulting in the collection of data on thousands of Americans.

That release came after the companies were freed by a recent legal deal with government lawyers.

The publications disclosed by Google, Microsoft, Yahoo, Facebook, LinkedIn and Tumblr provided expanded details and some vented criticism about the government’s handling of customers’ Internet data in counterterrorism and other intelligence-related probes. The figures from 2012 and 2013 showed that companies such as Google and Microsoft were compelled by the government to provide information on as many as 10,000 customer accounts in a six-month period. Yahoo complied with government requests for information on more than 40,000 accounts in the same period.

The companies earlier had provided limited information about government requests for data, but an agreement reached last week with the Obama administration allowed the firms to provide a broadened, though still circumscribed, set of figures to the public.

Seeking to reassure customers and business partners alarmed by revelations about the government’s massive collection of Internet and computer data, the firms stressed details indicating that only small numbers of their customers were targeted by authorities. Still, even those small numbers showed that thousands of Americans were affected by the government requests approved by judges of the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

The data releases by the major tech companies offered a mix of dispassionate graphics, reassurances and protests, seeking to alleviate customer concerns about government spying while pressuring national security officials about the companies’ constitutional concerns. The shifting tone in the releases showed the precarious course that major tech firms have had to navigate in recent months, caught between their public commitments to Internet freedom and their enforced roles as data providers to U.S. spy agencies.

In a company blog post, Microsoft General Counsel Brad Smith scolded the U.S. and allied governments for failing to renounce the reported mass interception of Internet data carried by communications cables. Top lawyers and executives for major tech companies had raised alarms previously about media reports describing that hacking by U.S. and United Kingdom spy agencies and cited them during conversations with U.S. officials during President Barack Obama’s internal review of planned changes to the government’s spying operations.

“Despite the president’s reform efforts and our ability to publish more information, there has not yet been any public commitment by either the U.S. or other governments to renounce the attempted hacking of Internet companies,” Smith said in a Microsoft blog release. He added that Microsoft planned to press the government “for more on this point, in collaboration with others across our industry.”

The new figures were released just a week after major tech firms announced a legal agreement with the Justice Department. But lawyers and executives for the companies openly vented their discomfort with the government’s continuing insistence that they could only provide broad ranges instead of the actual numbers of government requests.

The companies said they would press for narrower data ranges that would offer more details. “We will also continue to advocate for still narrower disclosure ranges, which will provide a more accurate picture of the number of national security-related requests,” said Erika Rottenberg, LinkedIn’s general counsel.

A spokesman for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence declined to comment on the companies’ releases and comments. The spokesman pointed to a late January statement by DNI James Clapper and Attorney General Eric Holder that said the agreement would allow the firms to “disclose more information than ever before to their customers.”

Google and all the other companies denied that they gave any government unfettered access to their users’ info. The companies are worried more people will reduce their online activities if they believe almost everything they do is being monitored by the government. A decline in Web surfing could hurt the companies financially by giving them fewer opportunities to show online ads and sell other services.

The companies can only reveal how many total requests they receive every six months, with the numbers in groupings of 1,000. And even those general numbers must be concealed for at least six months after any reporting period ends. That restriction means the FISA requests for the final half of last year can’t be shared until July, at the earliest.

The data released Monday indicated the U.S. government is digging deeper into the Internet as people spend more time online.

Most of the companies showed the number of government requests fell between 0 and 999 for each six-month period. But the numbers of customers affected by those searches ranged more widely.

Google, for instance, has seen the number of people affected by FISA court orders rise from 2,000 to 2,999 users during the first half of 2009 to between 9,000 and 9,999 users during the first half of last year. The company showed an unusual spike in the number of Americans whose data was collected between July and December 2012. During that period, metadata was collected from between 12,000 and 12,999 users. Under the restrictions imposed by the government, no explanation was provided for that anomaly.

Yahoo listed the highest number of people swept up in FISA requests for online content during the first half of last year. The orders seeking user content spanned 30,000 to 30,999 accounts, according to the company. The requested content could have included emails, instant messages, address books, calendar items and pictures.

All the companies also received FISA requests that weren’t aimed at scooping up online communications or photos. Those demands sought things such as billing information and locations of where people made an Internet connection.

Google described Monday’s disclosure as a positive step while promising to keep fighting for the right to provide more precise numbers about the FISA requests and more specifics about the data being sought. “We still believe more transparency is needed so everyone can better understand how surveillance laws work and decide whether or not they serve the public interest,” Richard Salgado, Google’s legal director of law enforcement and information security, wrote in a blog post.

Even if the companies can share more information about the FISA requests, they still might face doubts raised by other National Security Agency documents leaked by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden asserting that the U.S. government has found ways to tap into the lines transmitting personal information between data centers. The companies are trying to thwart the hacking by encrypting most, if not all, the data stored on their computers.

---

Liedtke reported from San Francisco.

[Clint]

[wigglez]

Is that a literal translation?

Edit: Yeah… I’m not believing he said that.

[LiquidGenius]

Wigglez still kickin it eh? =P

[wigglez]

Wigglez still kickin it eh? =P

I pop in here and there.

[Clint]

“Putin thinks we’re wussies and the president is the wussy-in-chief.”

— Andrew Kuchins, director of the Russia and Eurasia Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies,
as quoted in the March 10 issue of Bloomberg BusinessWeek

[Hogarste]

I’ve had a little more free time than usual as we are going through the process of outsourcing at work. I’ve been checking out a number of different conspiracy theories on Youtube. There are some pretty extreme ideas that are both political and yet also cross party lines. Personally, I do think there is obvious manipulation of the currency markets, which banks like Deutsche are basically admitting anyway. I would love to think that all these theories are a bunch of junk, but some things are difficult to dispute. I’m interested in knowing what folks think about some of these theories, such as Illuminati, 9/11, etc.

I think this fits into the political nature of this thread, and is kind of an extension of some of the posts.

[d-pip]

I’ve had a little more free time than usual as we are going through the process of outsourcing at work. I’ve been checking out a number of different conspiracy theories on Youtube. There are some pretty extreme ideas that are both political and yet also cross party lines. Personally, I do think there is obvious manipulation of the currency markets, which banks like Deutsche are basically admitting anyway. I would love to think that all these theories are a bunch of junk, but some things are difficult to dispute. I’m interested in knowing what folks think about some of these theories, such as Illuminati, 9/11, etc.

I think this fits into the political nature of this thread, and is kind of an extension of some of the posts.

Market manipulation? I think it’s comparable to speeding on the Garden State Parkway. LOL!

Happens everyday, most people have done it, sometime you need to do it just to survive and the authorities seem to look the other way, until there’s an enormous wreck.

Quote from Market manipulation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[I]“Market manipulation is a deliberate attempt to interfere with the free and fair operation of the market and create artificial, false or misleading appearances with respect to the price of, or market for, a security, commodity or currency.”[/I]

If someone has a really big pile of cash is it interfering with “the free and fair operation of the market” if they exercise their wealth advantage to pump and dump an instrument? Or set a bull/bear trap, hire a reporter to write an “honest” article talking up a stock they own, or even go on CNBC and advocate as in the Ackman Herbalife issue?

I don’t know the answer, but from what I’ve experienced, at some level, market manipulation seems to happen almost everyday in every market. Also a quick look through history and it’s pretty clear that markets always have been influenced via manipulation, is there any reason to believe the future should be any different?

From time to time there will be enormous wrecks, 1929, 1987, 2008, etc, authorities/regulators will show-up, ask questions, take photos, write reports, make recommendations, change a few rules, blah blah blah and the speeding and manipulation will slow down for a while. Then, the drivers and markets will pick-up speed and race on towards the next enormous wreck.

Seems to me that manipulation is just part of the risk of participating in the markets, just as driving the Garden State is part of the risk of having a fun summer weekend on the Jersey shore, or the I-95 I-195 interchange through Providence heading for the cape.