That damn Bush!

[Gan]

NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Job growth took off in April and was stronger than originally thought in February and March, the government said Friday in a report that flew in the face of recent fears of a slowing U.S. economy.

The Labor Department said employers added 274,000 jobs to payrolls last month, up from a revised 146,000 gain in March. Economists surveyed by Briefing.com had forecast a 170,000 gain in April.

Article:
http://money.cnn.com/2005/05/06/news/economy/jobs_april/index.htm?cnn=yes


Basically the economists are still split on whether thats a good sign or a not so good sign. But economists are always split on decisions - its their nature.

There is also mention of rising wages lower on in the article which is also a good indicator of things moving in the right direction for the summer.

The only reason why I'm posting this is because I do not expect any of the Bush bashers here to post soemthing good about the economy and equate it to our current administration. However, if this were a downturn then I would expect several threads on it as soon as it hit the papers.

[Parkbandit]

YEA BUT WHAT ABOUT THE DEFICIT! HE'S RUINED THIS COUNTRY WITH THE DEFICIT!

THE DEFICIT!!!!! BILL CLINTON HAD A SURPLUS AND NOW BUSH HAS A DEFICIT!!!!!

[Chadj]

Parkbandit raises a good point.

Edited to note: Who woulda thought that my 3500th post would contain that..

[Edited on 5-6-2005 by Chadj]

[DeV]

Originally posted by Ganalon
The only reason why I'm posting this is because I do not expect any of the Bush bashers here to post soemthing good about the economy and equate it to our current administration.On behalf of the Bush bashers I would like to applaud your efforts.

This is the ONE thing that most of the Bush supporters rarely do. Nice to see something "different" for a change.

[ElanthianSiren]

I think the defecit argument is that bill clinton had the highest economic surplus in history and Bush has taken it and turned it into one of the highest economic deficits in history.

Job numbers were lovely today, but the market is also flatline right now. Further, one job report does not an economy make. The job numbers have come in consistently low for months now.

While we may be seeing a bottom here, neither I, nor the economists are rushing to conclusions to say that the economy is turning. In fact, I don't think anyone in this thread is doing that.

-Melissa

[cookiemonster]

The deficit? Do you guys realize that most of the deficit is "imaginary" money? It's a "we import vs we export" number.
Yes, the war is costing money. Did you expect it to be free?
And who is the deficit affecting, really?
Did they take more of your check last year to pay for it?
No.
All through the 80's we had a deficit. Did it affect anyone?
No.
The point is it's for a good cause and it's not hurting anyone.
The government's USED to running in the red.

[Gan]

Not to mention that countries who we owe money to are more likely to protect our interests in order to get their money back...

Would you snub someone who owed you money? Or would you wait until they paid you back then snubbed them?

Just a thought... :whistle:

<Job numbers were lovely today, but the market is also flatline right now. Further, one job report does not an economy make. The job numbers have come in consistently low for months now. >

Please see below:
"The April payroll number wasn't the only one showing unexpected strength. The March employment gain was revised up from an initial reading of 110,000 new jobs, and the February rate was revised up to 300,000 from 243,000.

Job growth now has averaged 240,000 jobs over the last three months, the best three-month performance the period ended last May. "

[Chadj]

<<The point is it's for a good cause and it's not hurting anyone. >>

The deficit which you have because of a war (which is not a good cause and it's killing people) is for a good cause and not hurting anyone?

[cookiemonster]

Seriously Chad.
Would you rather we didnt go to war and more people
got hurt?

I'd gladly PAY to go to war and have a few thousand Republican
National Guardsmen killed to keep a child molesting bastard
like Sadaam in prison than sit on my fat laurels on my
safe old american soil saying

"Hmm, sure is sad those poor
little iraqui girls and women are being beaten and murdered. Not
to mention raped repeatedly--- For fun. Hmph, so sad. Think I"ll
have some pepsi and doritos and watch Friends. I'll feel better then....
Kumba-ya, My Lord, Kumba-ya..."

Yeah, I'll take the responsible role any day over that passive
head in the sand stance.

[Edited for readability]

[Edited on 5-6-2005 by cookiemonster]

[Parker]

I want to point out some of the circumstances around Bush's presidency that people seem to often overlook when they start to complain about the deficit.

1: Bush came in after a president that was very good. He may have gotten in trouble for getting a bit of Secretary booty while in the whitehouse and lying about it, but you can't doubt his abilities as a president, as is evidenced in his economic surplus.
2: Many seem to overlook the truth of what happened on 9-11. Now, I don't want to sound like I'm dredging up the past, but let's consider this from a purely economic standpoint for a moment.

-9-11 targeted the largest single symbol of our economy in the Nation. The Twin Towers contained something near 10,000 workers at their capacity, and all of them were trained to manage money. Now, consider the cashflow, and the money exchanges that happened in that building, just by virtue of the fact that it wasn't a warehouse, or a retail store, but a building for companies to house their people that crunched their numbers and made their deals.

Now, consider the timing, The nation was at it's highest, economically. If I'm not mistaken, unemployment was at an all-time low, and the nation was on top, politically, economically, militarily, and socially.

The demoralization, fear and near-panic that happened immediately after the attacks had the ecomony in a slide, before Bush could even make any decisions.

You deal ANY president that set of cards, and they'll make short work of any surplus that came before them. I think that most, if not all of us can agree that war against the terrorists in AFGHANISTAN was necessary. I don't want to get on an iraq debate, but for his first term, Bush went to war on Afghanistan. A war of that scale, fought in the way that the war had to be fought, is going to cost a lot of money. A lot more money than any country can make in the same amount of time. Bush was dealt the worst set of cards that any president has ever been dealt, especially because we're not fighting a country with set borders. We're fighting people, all over the world, who are living among innocents.

My 2 cents, I hope that I made coherent sense.

[Chadj]

I might give you that it's a good cause. Misled, based on lies, but still a good cause.

But definately not that it's not hurting anybody. A lot of peoples lives (both American and Iraqi) are fucked up now due to lost relatives.

And if it really bothers you THAT much, then you need to declare war on a whole shit load of other countries, cause Iraq is definately not the only one like that.

[Chadj]

<Bush was dealt the worst set of cards that any president has ever been dealt,>

Really? Cool. Not something I believe though.

[ElanthianSiren]

Originally posted by Ganalon
Not to mention that countries who we owe money to are more likely to protect our interests in order to get their money back...

Would you snub someone who owed you money? Or would you wait until they paid you back then snubbed them?

Just a thought... :whistle:

<Job numbers were lovely today, but the market is also flatline right now. Further, one job report does not an economy make. The job numbers have come in consistently low for months now. >

Please see below:
"The April payroll number wasn't the only one showing unexpected strength. The March employment gain was revised up from an initial reading of 110,000 new jobs, and the February rate was revised up to 300,000 from 243,000.

Job growth now has averaged 240,000 jobs over the last three months, the best three-month performance the period ended last May. "

...right, and that isn't THAT stellar taking into account how far numbers have slipped. Further, I think you're actually referencing three different economic measures: Nonfarm payrolls, Unemployment, and workweek. Here are the raw data:

Nonfarm Payrolls for Apr consensus 175K prior 110K
US April Nonfarm Payrolls +274K; Consensus +175K

Unemployment Rate for Apr consensus 5.2% prior 5.2%
US April Unemployment Rate 5.2%; Consensus 5.2%

Average Workweek for Apr A consensus 33.7 prior 33.7
Average Workweek for Apr A consensus 33.7 prior 33.7
Average Workweek 33.9

So basically, you're working .70 hours a week longer for the .05 cent increase to average pay and while the numbers are up, unemployment is steady instead of falling after the rises that we saw after the holidays.

If you play stocks, there's a pattern called a flag. Basically what it is, is a sharp impulse in one direction that "corrects" in the opposite direction for a few increasing bars then resumes its original course. The US economy could presently be likened to a bear flag, and the numbers, while good, were not good enough to warrant many economists, or even posters here, to say we're heading into a reversal.

Again, it's possible, but the present data does not support it YET.

-Melissa

[Parker]

Originally posted by Chadj
<<The point is it's for a good cause and it's not hurting anyone. >>

The deficit which you have because of a war (which is not a good cause and it's killing people) is for a good cause and not hurting anyone?

Alright, I want to just talk about this, not point fingers, or cause an argument.

Now, I think the first statement is false...It's war, and everyone will get hurt in war. That's the idea of war; To make people die.

Now, Chad, I agree with you that the Iraq war should have been done long ago. Bush should have pulled out the minute he capture Huissein, and saved face. Now he's still there, with no end in sight. Can you agree, however, that the original reason for going to war [edit: Wanted to clarify that I'm talking about going into Afghanistan.] was not valid and sufficient? People attacking us directly need to be dealt with using immediate and terrifying force, in my opinion...

[Edited on 5-6-2005 by Parker]

[BigWorm]

That's the idea of war; To make people die.

Therefore, war should be a last ditch effort. We shouldn't MAKE UP reasons to go to war with another country.

[Edited on 5-6-2005 by BigWorm]

[cookiemonster]

I agree that we need to move a little farther down the line of
backwards nations. It's amazing what a little taste of freedom
will do for a country. The fact remains that we dont want
13 different fronts going on at once. Nor do we want
places big enough to declare a World War to think we're
on an around the world in 80 days tour.

Needless to say that wouldn't advance democracy at all.

As far as "A lot of peoples lives (both American and Iraqi) are fucked up now due to lost relatives." I have to disagree.

A few people's lives are messed up. Not a lot, a few.
Just over a thousand GI's and much less for other countries.

How could this have been prevented?
Well, the people involved could have not joined the armed forces.
There's a good start.

But they did, and you know they probably knew it wasnt a
day-camp for big kids.

We teach them to do two things in the service...
Break things and kill people.

That's their job. Protect our fat lazy carb-covered asses and
follow orders.
Most of them take it very seriously. VERY. (Semper Fi guys!)
They joined the services not because they wanted to play it safe,
or keep "momma" from crying, but because they wanted to
protect their country and the people in it. Ask them.


Most of them are also ready to die for their country's beliefs
and safety to protect those that love them, and those that dont.
The possibility of being killed in the line of dugy is just part of the
package when you say "Yes Sir! I'd like to enlist SIR!"

You dont say "I'd like to enlist SIR! But..Only if I can have a job
state-side mopping floors in a really deep bunker. I dont want
to actually DO anything, I just want to be safe so my family
won't cry."

As a third gen enlistee I know my family would be upset if something
had happened to me. I also know they would be proud of me
and remember me as a man that loved his family and his country
and did what he could to keep it safe so they can raise kids and
not worry if some idiot (yes, I said idiot - how unPC!) is going to
pick today to strap 40 lbs of dynamite to his chest and smoke a cigarrette
outside of their daycare center.

[cookiemonster]

I kind of ranted there a bit, sorry gang.

:coffee:

[ElanthianSiren]

oh god, here we go again. Saddam was a bad bad man thread. Please, can't we stay on topic?

Quick someone start the 58000000th "I hate the war in Iraq!" thread so we can rehash the same arguments for the 58000001th time.

-Melissa

[Parker]

Quick someone start the 58000000th "I hate the war in Iraq!" thread so we can rehash the same arguments for the 58000001th time.
Alright, did it.

[Chadj]

<Can you agree, however, that the original reason for going to war [edit: Wanted to clarify that I'm talking about going into Afghanistan.] was not valid and sufficient? People attacking us directly need to be dealt with using immediate and terrifying force, in my opinion... >

Afganistan never attacked the US. The Taliban did.. Although the Taliban were based in, and basically controlled, Afganistan, so I agree with the attack on said country.

Iraq never attacked the United States, however, so where's the justification on picking Iraq over the many, many other countries just like it (or worse, in some cases?)

[Edited on 5-6-2005 by Chadj]

[Chadj]

Also, Melissa, I think you mean 58000001st, not 58000001th.

[Parker]

Originally posted by Chadj
<Can you agree, however, that the original reason for going to war [edit: Wanted to clarify that I'm talking about going into Afghanistan.] was not valid and sufficient? People attacking us directly need to be dealt with using immediate and terrifying force, in my opinion... >

Iraq never attacked the United States directly.

End of story.

[Edited on 5-6-2005 by Chadj]

Hence the reason I edited the post twenty minutes before you replied, sayin that I was referring to our original reason as being in reference to AFGHANISTAN.

please, please, I love you buddy, use your brain before you post!

[Chadj]

Already fixed, re-read.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Chadj
<Can you agree, however, that the original reason for going to war [edit: Wanted to clarify that I'm talking about going into Afghanistan.] was not valid and sufficient? People attacking us directly need to be dealt with using immediate and terrifying force, in my opinion... >

Afganistan never attacked the US. The Taliban did.. Although the Taliban were based in, and basically controlled, Afganistan, so I agree with the attack on said country.

Iraq never attacked the United States, however, so where's the justification on picking Iraq over the many, many other countries just like it (or worse, in some cases?)



1) We weren't asking any other country for 12 years to comply with UN Resolutions.

2) Look what it did for Lybia.

[Back]

Originally posted by cookiemonster
I kind of ranted there a bit, sorry gang.

:coffee:

Thats ok, because I only read up until “only a few people got hurt” then realized how unbelievably absurd your rationale is and skipped the rest.

Back on topic though, by all means, please, post good things Bush has done. There is a decided lack of these kinds of posts on this board. You might say thats because most of us are dirty/hippie/commie/liberal/satanists and only try our hardest to make the man look bad.

But wait, there are a good number here who do approve of the president... huh. I wonder why they aren’t posting all those great things he does.

And Ganalon, if I were to post something that shed the president’s economic record in a bad light, the Bush fanbois would claim is was some other obscure economic factor.

PS. Bush spent the SS surplus before 9/11 and now has the audacity to offer to fix it.

[Hulkein]

Think Bush could get in a rules change and run for a 3rd term?

That'd be awesome.

[ElanthianSiren]

Originally posted by Hulkein
Think Bush could get in a rules change and run for a 3rd term?

That'd be awesome.

three words: ex post facto -- thank god.

-Melissa

[Warriorbird]

The hilarious irony is that they still buy our bonds. No reason to except to keep us afloat.

The "job growth" numbers are themselves a sort've amusing indicator, why I've never harped on them.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
The hilarious irony is that they still buy our bonds. No reason to except to keep us afloat.

The "job growth" numbers are themselves a sort've amusing indicator, why I've never harped on them.

Well, except when they are negative, then harp away.

People who whine about the deficit need to be slapped. The only reason we had a surplus is because we got payed a ton of money by Saudi Arabia to liberate Kuwait and invade Iraq, that money wasn't going to be around forever.

- Arkans

[CrystalTears]

With that kind of post, why bother posting anything worthwhile? You probably wouldn't believe any of it anyway. That's like saying "tell me how fucking great this piece of shit school is" because chances are, if you are that against it already, not much can be said to change your mind. Seems like a wasted effort to try.

Anyway, when he stated that "only a few people got hurt", I took it to mean that for a war, the loss is way lower than it could be, or in comparison to other wars. There will always be losses in a war, so it's always good to think that the numbers were lower than expected.

[Warriorbird]

I actually haven't harped on them negatively either, Parkbandit. Only times I've mocked have been Republicans crowing about them.

"People who whine about the deficit need to be slapped."

Of course, Arkans. The great depression and the crash after the 1980's are things that you value. Our currency is also SO POWERFUL these days.

Hopefully someday you'll get the smack you need.

And if you think that's where the surplus came from, well I've some valuable Iraqi currency to sell you. You can also pay for my gas a few weeks.

Ten years of a Republican Congress. Curiously enough, spending has doubled. Why aren't conservatives conservative?

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
Ten years of a Republican Congress. Curiously enough, spending has doubled. Why aren't conservatives conservative?

I look at it that at LEAST we didn't have a Democratic Congress.. then we would REALLY be up shit's creek.

[Warriorbird]

And you can say it with a straight face, too.

Would you run a hotel like that?

I doubt it. Why? You seem at the least moderately intelligent.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
And you can say it with a straight face, too.

Would you run a hotel like that?

I doubt it. Why? You seem at the least moderately intelligent.

If room 300 was destroyed by a suicide bomber, room 200 was destroyed by a hurricane, room 100 was destroyed by extremist muslims.. I might have to run the hotel in a deficit situation for the month.

Can't really compare a single business to the entire government of the US. There are different stresses and pressures.

[Warriorbird]

For a year, maybe. Not ten.

You're better than that, I'd bet.

[DeV]

Originally posted by Hulkein
Think Bush could get in a rules change and run for a 3rd term?

That'd be awesome. It'd be awesome if Clinton could have done it too.

Not gonna happen.

[Gan]

Clinton is the reason why my mom switched from being a Democrat to a Republican. I'd hate to think what she would have turned into if Clinton was capable of having a 3rd term. :lol:

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
For a year, maybe. Not ten.

You're better than that, I'd bet.

Like I said.. you can't compare the two.

[Chadj]

I'm not gonna bother googling what Falgrin was talking about for Lybia.. but...

<<1) We weren't asking any other country for 12 years to comply with UN Resolutions. >>

To comply with what? Disarming the WMD? Cause there were sooo many WMD's found in Iraq.

So, Iraq was attacked because they disagreed with the UN.. yet, the US went against UN sanctions when they attacked them? Hypocritical much?

[Edited on 5-6-2005 by Chadj]

[DeV]

Originally posted by Ganalon
Clinton is the reason why my mom switched from being a Democrat to a Republican. I'd hate to think what she would have turned into if Clinton was capable of having a 3rd term. :lol: Such a powerful man that Clinton.

[cookiemonster]

Backlash,

What I was referring to was the total LACK of "lots" of US soldiers
dying in iraq.
Barely over 1000 dead in a war that overtook an entire country of
millions with lightning speed.
Compared with any other war, that's an awsome accomplishment.
Also, how long do you think it would have taken Saddam to kill
that many kids? Women? Sons and Fathers?

The needs of the many always outweigh the needs of the few in these situations.
Always.

[ElanthianSiren]

Originally posted by cookiemonster

The needs of the many always outweigh the needs of the few in these situations.
Always.


The reason never outweighs the truth.

-Melissa

It's awesome to know that Bush can't be reelected again.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Chadj
I'm not gonna bother googling what Falgrin was talking about for Lybia.. but...

<<1) We weren't asking any other country for 12 years to comply with UN Resolutions. >>

To comply with what? Disarming the WMD? Cause there were sooo many WMD's found in Iraq.

So, Iraq was attacked because they disagreed with the UN.. yet, the US went against UN sanctions when they attacked them? Hypocritical much?

[Edited on 5-6-2005 by Chadj]

Lybia saw what happened in Iraq and decided to turn over all of it's WMD to the UN (Which was years ahead of where we thought they were)

And the US did not go against any UN sanctions.

[cookiemonster]

Melissa,

"The reason never outweighs the truth.

-Melissa"

How is this relevant? A few, very few, WILLING soldiers die so that
many many families can taste what it's like to be free. If your house
is broken into by a crack addict and YOU KNOW it's the guy next door...
The cops cant go in and look because you have no proof.

Say they just go over for a visit and ask to use the bathroom.
In the process they discover all your collectible precious moments dolls and run the guy to jail.
Is that OK?

[ElanthianSiren]

No WMDs. Bush lied. The reasons for going to war with Iraq (Hussein's terrible treatment of his people it is this week or maybe to set an example?) never outweigh the truth of the situation (There are no weapons of mass destruction -- which is the line we were fed).

He could tell me, and the rest of the world, that we are in imminent danger from nuclear attack from North Korea, and I wouldn't believe him unless someone reputable backed it up. In fact, I probably wouldn't believe him if he told me that his daughters are drunks but not because my heart holds great love for them.

-Melissa

[Warriorbird]

"The needs of the many always outweigh the needs of the few in these situations.
Always."

Yeah. Tell that to the dead Kurds. Or all the Rwandans or Yugoslavians that the Republicans bitched about helping.

Or heck, North Korea.

While liberals have a hard time going against the Iraq war because Saddam was such reprehensible scum, you can't seriously be parroting platitudes like that.

[Edited on 5-6-2005 by Warriorbird]

[CrystalTears]

:cry:

Nevermind. I'm too tired to argue the Bush "lies" for the billionth time. Believe whatever you want and so will the rest of us. Not sure why we have these debates anymore.

[Edited on 5/6/2005 by CrystalTears]

[Chadj]

<<And the US did not go against any UN sanctions. >>

Sanction, I knew when I typed it, was the incorrect word. However, I am rather tired, and did not look up the proper one, which is my own fault. However, I figured you would know what I meant.

The UN did not want Iraq to be invaded, yet the US did it anyways. It's still hypocritical.

[ElanthianSiren]

Originally posted by CrystalTears

Why is it that BUSH was the one who lied just because he was the one who went through with the war? Can't be that we were misinformed by intelligence. Can't be that even Clinton was with the notion to invade him for having WMD. Can't be that we weren't the only country who felt he had them. Couldn't be the fact that Saddam didn't follow the rules. No. It was all Bush's idea. All his doing. For people who say that he's so fucking stupid, he was smart enough to convince everyone that he's this powerhungry, warmongering selfish freakazoid.

As long as you people keep up with the "Bush lied" we'll keep on defending the poor bastard who got fucked with a terrorist act on our soil.

If you read the intelligence reports after Clinton bombed Iraq, they were complying with UN regulations. Now, you can say, they gave us more info than we wanted, so what? They gave us the info we wanted.

Further, over 50% (53% according to the last Gallup poll) of people think that Bush intentionally misled (lied) about WMDs. Sorry, you're in the minority backing "the poor bastard" who has used and abused a national tragedy to repeal rights afforded by the constitution, remove weapons safety checks, cripple medical aid for seniors, and ruin America's national credibility as a peace keeping nation.

-Melissa

[CrystalTears]

Oh goddamnit, this is why I should know better than to reply and then change it because you people are replying too fast. Now I'm screwed. :banghead:

[Chadj]

Bush lied. Fucking face it. Jesus, is that so hard to get?

OH NO HE'S PRESIDENT AND THEREFORE WOULD NEVER EVER LIE.

[Edited on 5-6-2005 by Chadj]

[Warriorbird]

Emo conservatism runs rampant, CT. I doubt the Democrat party will come back for a long damn time yet you're being "oppressed" by liberals like so many conservative media hacks. You've won. It shouldn't bother you. We're fucked.

Naturally, it bothers some of us.

[Edited on 5-6-2005 by Warriorbird]

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by ElanthianSiren
Further, over 50% (53% according to the last Gallup poll) of people think that Bush intentionally misled (lied) about WMDs.

WELL BECAUSE 53% OF AMERICANS BELIEVE BUSH LIED THEN IT MUST BE THE TRUTH.

Well over 50% of Americans believe in ghosts as well. Over 80% of Americans believe there is a God. (I'm making these percentages up..)

Does this mean that it's actually true?

Try backing up your arguments with actual facts instead of opinion polls. Opionion polls are not facts.

Thanks.

[CrystalTears]

It's all in the way you interpret and accept the information. Sorry but I don't believe that he lied and mislead in order to go to war, and obviously neither does the other 50% of the country.

I'm just curious if anyone would have been this pissed off about lies if Clinton would have started the war on Iraq.

By the way, these great polls you're referring to now was saying that Kerry was going to win by a landslide. So much for public opinion and what people actually do and say for real.

[Edited on 5/6/2005 by CrystalTears]

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Chadj
Bush lied. Fucking face it. Jesus, is that so hard to get?

OH NO HE'S PRESIDENT AND THEREFORE WOULD NEVER EVER LIE.

[Edited on 5-6-2005 by Chadj]

LOL. I can't wait to hear Chadj's facts to support this claim.

:popcorn:

[Warriorbird]

"I'm just curious if anyone would have been this pissed off about lies if Clinton would have started the war on Iraq. "

-CT

Yep. You.

[Edited on 5-6-2005 by Warriorbird]

[Gan]

All politicians lie.

Originally posted by Ganalon
All politicians lie.

^^

[Warriorbird]

Gonna agree with you there. Having spent significant time with some of them... once you get above the local level it is entirely true, and sometimes on the local level.

[Parkbandit]

Clinton bombed a Sudan factory.. I don't think I ever said he was lying to the American public that it was a WMD facility. Our intelligence was merely incorrect.

[CrystalTears]

I would be pissed off at Clinton? :lol: I'm pissed off that he didn't initiate the war when he was in office. Yeah I'm all about being against the president. :rolleyes:

And I do know that presidents lie, however I don't believe he misled THE WORLD to invade Iraq. I just don't. We won't convince each other otherwise, but I won't call anyone names for believing in that. Other will, though.

[Artha]

Further, over 50% (53% according to the last Gallup poll) of people think that Bush intentionally misled (lied) about WMDs.
Doed anyone else remember when some people, pre-election, were saying that Gallup polls were worthless? Because I do :)

[cookiemonster]

"Yeah. Tell that to the dead Kurds. Or all the Rwandans or Yugoslavians that the Republicans bitched about helping.

Or heck, North Korea.

While liberals have a hard time going against the Iraq war because Saddam was such reprehensible scum, you can't seriously be parroting platitudes like that.
"

So you're saying the kurds and whatnot were persecuted because of the needs of the many? No, they were beaten down
by a dictatorships and power-hungry warlords.

As for Bush lying, had I see those same intelligence reports I would have put my stamp on the war too.
Call it a lie if you want, but it's only a lie if you KNOW the truth and
choose to tell a falsehood.

Hell, even Clinton believed they had WMD.
Personally, I'm of the mind it was shipped (there are several sat photos showing cargo on the move) to his "boy" in Syria.

[Chadj]

Originally posted by Parkbandit

Originally posted by Chadj
Bush lied. Fucking face it. Jesus, is that so hard to get?

OH NO HE'S PRESIDENT AND THEREFORE WOULD NEVER EVER LIE.

[Edited on 5-6-2005 by Chadj]

LOL. I can't wait to hear Chadj's facts to support this claim.

:popcorn:

It's more of an opinion <3.

However, he claimed there were WMD's, for sure. And there weren't. I believe he was lying.

But maybe he didn't lie.. Just like Clinton and Monica never happened..

[Gan]

"We did not have sex"... wait... "Define sex again?"

:lol: :lol: :lol:

[Warriorbird]

Needs of the many, CM. The Republicans thought it was an excellent idea to show the "soldiers coming home" to America, rather than saving the asses of the Kurds and Shiites who'd stuck their necks out for us. Not saying the Democrats are blameless, as Clinton didn't do much of anything for those people either.

As far as the Bush lying nonsense goes, well...if you'd read Wolfowitz or Perle you'd understand what the war was really about... but reading conservative policymakers is beyond most Republicans.

On a more amusing note, the Cookie Monster is not advocating unmoderated cookie scarfing these days. He's on a diet.

[DeV]

Originally posted by CrystalTears
I'm pissed off that he didn't initiate the war when he was in office. You weren't the only one I'd wager. http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm

[Warriorbird]

"No, it hasn't been planned for a while!"

:snickers:

If the Republicans outted him as "lying" about it, you'd be crowing right along with them, CT. You think the investigation of him having an affair was justified.

[Gan]

I know this is completely off topic (and in my own thread too!) but damn it DeV - the dimples in your avatar ROCK! I love those kinds of dimples.

[Farquar]

Originally posted by Ganalon
Clinton is the reason why my mom switched from being a Democrat to a Republican. I'd hate to think what she would have turned into if Clinton was capable of having a 3rd term. :lol:

All offense, but your mom sounds like one of those bible toters that believe Clinton's "sinful act" somehow bears on his ability to be a president. I'd rather have people on my party that think individually rather than having a fictional text or some republican talking head do it for them.

On a side note, I don't like knowing that I'm smarter than the man in charge of the country. It doesn't make me particularly happy nor comfortable. This is the first time in my life I could believe this with a fairly strong certainty (not during Carter, Reagan, Bush I, and Clinton), and frankly, I'd rather not have the burden hanging over my head. Oh well, three more years.

[Gan]

:lol: Far from it Farqar - she doesnt go to church at all. She was comically what we referred to as a 'tree hugger' in our family until recently.

She was the ONLY member of our family that used to be Democratic. The rest of us were always just a little smarter than that. I think it was because she was a late blooming hippie.

Offense not really taken though. She's moved over from that dark side and thats all that counts. hahahahahahahaha. And yes, she voted for Bush - BOTH TIMES!

Perhaps in 3 years the democrats can nominate someone smart enough to beat out the Republicans. Perhaps you could enter in the ballot and lead us all into enlightenment. :lol:

[Warriorbird]

Don't think Farquar's old enough.

[DeV]

Originally posted by Ganalon
I know this is completely off topic (and in my own thread too!) but damn it DeV - the dimples in your avatar ROCK! I love those kinds of dimples. Hellz yeahz, I can agree with you all day on this. :yes:

[DeV]

Originally posted by Ganalon
The rest of us were always just a little smarter than that. Smarter in what way? lol

[Farquar]

Intelligence isn't really a factor in becoming elected though. Simple, god-fearing people of meager intellectual means tend to identify with those in whom they share similar characteristics. Put a mediocre, likeable man with respectable paper credentials on the ballot, arm him with the approximation of a religious mandate, and you have the recipe for a winner.

There's a reason that the overwhelming majority of university professors and most educated people in our society are liberal-dems . These individuals share an identity with a party that they believe has a developed social, environmental, and fiscal conscience, much like themselves. By cruel design of nature however, the enlightened are always to be in the minority.

[Gan]

Smarter in that Republican leadership for this country has been the smartest choice we could have made since the 1980's. Its just a shame that Clinton had to interrupt the headway in foreigh and domestic policy with the Democratic style and yet ride on the wave of benefits derived from the past 12 years of Republican sponsored policy and now we're paying for the backslide.

If you think that policy has an immediate impact on the US Economy or any other facet then you're sadly mistaken. As any economist will tell you, it takes years for the effects of policy to reach its full effect.

But we digress... this isnt a thread about which party or policy is smarter, nor is it a thread about my mom, or Clinton or any of the others... its a thread about legislature finding BS reasons to show progress instead of focusing on what issues are important.

I don't really think religion teaches us morals. A human being who is doing something wrong, is doing something wrong because society tells them "Hey, guess what? Child mollestation isn't *exactly* what we would call sharing the 'Love'".

I don't believe in higher forces. I know people who don't believe in higher forces. I know people who do. A respectable person is somebody who conducts their behaviour in a manner that is socially acceptable; religion, creed, ethos, race, country of origin, etc, have very minimal barings on how functional a person can be.

Someone may love Jesus. Alright. They may prostletyze the word of Jesus to me. Alright. They may even politely ask me to sit in as a member of a church's congregation. Alright.
-The thing is that I have been approached by Christians who have said these things to me before. I have smiled and said "No Thank You," which is usually followed by, "Well in case you change your mind, I currently go to so-and-so church." Smile, disengage.

That is fine.

I've been in situations where I've gotten a little more than annoyed at people who try to shove an ideology down my throat. I'm going to make the astute conjecture that even had these individuals possibly adopted a different set of beliefs, I'm sure I wouldn't have perceived it as more "loving" when they tried to forcefeed it to me.

.
.
.

Um, in short, keep thine religion to thineself. K thnx byby.

[Gan]

Religious bible thumpers are no worse nor rabid than the fanatic liberal professors trying to shove their idealology down your throat as a student.

I see no difference. Both are as undesirable in my book.

[AnticorRifling]

I'm not even going to get started as to what I thought this thread was about. And here I was all excited that my Bic stock was going up.

[Gan]

:lol2:

Originally posted by Ganalon
Religious bible thumpers are no worse nor rabid than the fanatic liberal professors trying to shove their idealology down your throat as a student.

I see no difference. Both are as undesirable in my book.

No doubt.

[DeV]

Originally posted by Farquar
There's a reason that the overwhelming majority of university professors and most educated people in our society are liberal-dems . These individuals share an identity with a party that they believe has a developed social, environmental, and fiscal conscience, much like themselves. By cruel design of nature however, the enlightened are always to be in the minority. Brilliant.

[Gan]

Originally posted by DeV

Originally posted by Farquar
There's a reason that the overwhelming majority of university professors and most educated people in our society are liberal-dems . These individuals share an identity with a party that they believe has a developed social, environmental, and fiscal conscience, much like themselves. By cruel design of nature however, the enlightened are always to be in the minority. Brilliant.

And hence the reason why we have an electoral college.

[Glavenfyre]

Originally posted by Farquar
There's a reason that the overwhelming majority of university professors and most educated people in our society are liberal-dems . These individuals share an identity with a party that they believe has a developed social, environmental, and fiscal conscience, much like themselves. By cruel design of nature however, the enlightened are always to be in the minority.

Apparently you consider social communism to be the path of enlightenment because every "liberal-dem" (read as 99% of them) professor I've ever had lives in this communist fantasy world.

[cookiemonster]

On a more amusing note, the Cookie Monster is not advocating unmoderated cookie scarfing these days. He's on a diet.

I know! What's up with that? He was trying to eat the moon today though.
Thought it was a cookie. He's still a cookie nut, just he's learning "Cookies
are a sometime food".

Whatever. Don't believe 'em CM! Fight for your right to
party in cookie crumbs!


Edited because I screwed up the quotes :)



[Edited on 5-6-2005 by cookiemonster]

[Warriorbird]

"Apparently you consider social communism to be the path of enlightenment because every "liberal-dem" (read as 99% of them) professor I've ever had lives in this communist fantasy world. "

Maybe you're just a rightwing nutjob McCarthyist.

:)

[CrystalTears]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
If the Republicans outted him as "lying" about it, you'd be crowing right along with them, CT. You think the investigation of him having an affair was justified.

No I wouldn't. Thanks for assuming my response on what would happen. If Clinton was going on the same exact information that Bush had and he went to war, I would have supported him the same way I have for Bush.

BTW, I voted for Clinton for both of his terms. I liked Clinton very much. He had his mishaps and problems, but I supported him.

As for his affair, I didn't care who or what he did, and I didn't think it was fair he be asked that in the first place as that's a family issue anyway. I just wanted him to be honest about it.

[Edited on 5/6/2005 by CrystalTears]

[Glavenfyre]

"Maybe you're just a rightwing nutjob McCarthyist."

Maybe, minus the whole religion thing and more than a few other points.

[Gan]

Damn straight... Kill em all and let God sort em out!

:lol:

[Back]

Originally posted by cookiemonster
Backlash,

What I was referring to was the total LACK of "lots" of US soldiers
dying in iraq.
Barely over 1000 dead in a war that overtook an entire country of
millions with lightning speed.
Compared with any other war, that's an awsome accomplishment.
Also, how long do you think it would have taken Saddam to kill
that many kids? Women? Sons and Fathers?

The needs of the many always outweigh the needs of the few in these situations.
Always.

Sorry to get back on this so late, and I did go back to read your post and found while painting a nice picture, very very far from reality.

Lack of US Soldiers dying, true, but nobody knows how many innocent iraqi civilians (women and children included) have died by us “helping” them. The fact that no one knows is indicative that no one really cares about the average iraqi. The citizens who go about their daily lives trying to make ends meet and live a good life just like you and me.

You can not qualify that with some bullshit COULD HAVE/WOULD HAVE rationale because its hypothetical and pure fantasy.

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, you say. You know, this isn’t fucking Star Trek, Spock isn’t real, and he’s not coming to save the day. Who exactly are the “many” and the “few” in this scenario, because last I heard, we all lived on this planet together.

If you really think the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, then you’d be seriously pissed that in our country alone, 2% of the population are the richest. That doesn't sound like the needs of the many to me. That sounds like the needs of the rich, fuck the rest.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Farquar
Simple, god-fearing people of meager intellectual means tend to identify with those in whom they share similar characteristics.Who said the Democrats were elitist?
Originally posted by Stanley Burrell
I don't really think religion teaches us morals. A human being who is doing something wrong, is doing something wrong because society tells them "Hey, guess what? Child mollestation isn't *exactly* what we would call sharing the 'Love'". This is way off topic, but cultural relativism is not the way to define morality, unless you think the Holocaust was a swell idea.

<<This is way off topic, but cultural relativism is not the way to define morality, unless you think the Holocaust was a swell idea.>>

There were enough culturally relative human beings outside of those parameters to balance the equation. If not we'd all be speaking German.

[cookiemonster]

Sorry to get back on this so late,

Dont worry about it. I'm just sitting here
coding and reading old posts to better get to know you guys. I find it refreshing that you can have discussions like this and be the best of friends afterwards. Good boards, these be.


and I did go back to read your post and found while painting a nice picture, very very far from reality.


Actually it's not at all. Fewer Iraqui civillians
died in this altercation than any wartime
enemy civillians in history. This was a
pinpoint (relatively) operation and went
right to the source. Out damn spot.



You can not qualify that with some bullshit COULD HAVE/WOULD HAVE rationale because its hypothetical and pure fantasy.


Again, you're wrong. We know for a fact
if history is any teacher that Sadaam
WOULD HAVE/COULD HAVE killed many
more than died in the war within just a
month. What's more, he wouldn't have
cared. We actually care if some innocent
dies. And that's during wartime. Unprecedented!


The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, you say.


And that's always the case in situations like this.
A select few lose their lives for the betterment
of their breathren. If you disagree, buy the
ebay time machine and tell George Washington
your plan for world peace before he starts
the revolution. I'm sure he'll be thrilled.


You know, this isn’t fucking Star Trek, Spock isn’t real, and he’s not coming to save the day.


This is ignorant blather. The quoted point
holds true in this scenario. Please stay on
topic. Though it's funny you're a star trek fan :)


Who exactly are the “many” and the “few” in this scenario, because last I heard, we all lived on this planet together.


Many= The world et-al has another free
democracy, the entire Iraqui people.

Few = The select few that lost their lives,
many of them proudly, in the name
name of freedom.



If you really think the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, then you’d be seriously pissed that in our country alone, 2% of the population are the richest. That doesn't sound like the needs of the many to me. That sounds like the needs of the rich, fuck the rest.

This part was also a bit out there.
What do rich Americans have to do with anything?
Those top 2% either worked for what they earned, or their families did.
They also pay the highest taxes in the US
too.
Are you saying we should all hold hands and
do a massive "share (number) coins"?

That's not right.



-And on that note, I'm hitting the sack. See ya'll tomorrow!

[Hulkein]

Originally posted by DeV

Originally posted by Farquar
There's a reason that the overwhelming majority of university professors and most educated people in our society are liberal-dems . These individuals share an identity with a party that they believe has a developed social, environmental, and fiscal conscience, much like themselves. By cruel design of nature however, the enlightened are always to be in the minority. Brilliant.

What's brilliant is the amazing amounts of uneducated crackheads and lowlives that also identify with the party.

More people with a BA or BS vote republican than democrat.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Stanley Burrell
There were enough culturally relative human beings outside of those parameters to balance the equation. If not we'd all be speaking German. Balance what equation? Did the culture decide to purge itself of its Jewish elements or not?

[Glavenfyre]

Originally posted by cookiemonster

Are you saying we should all hold hands and
do a massive "share (number) coins"?



Yes... but lets call it what it is, the leftist communist ideal.

I don't know what's worse, this view on things, or the way the righties would reverse all progress made and send us back to the dark ages.

<<Balance what equation? Did the culture decide to purge itself of its Jewish elements or not?>>

Sorry, I'll try to explain it better, I think.

When the Jews were being exterminated, there were enough culturally evolved humans from other parts of the world to stop the problem. At that point in time, thank goodness, other societies were able to curb the regressive fundamentals of a Nazi society.

As a whole, individuals throughout the globe become perturbed by this unspeakable atrocity. People who bare even an iota of a "good" sociocultural ideology, in some fashion, will be bothered by something that terrible.

Religion has undoubtedly played a huge roll in this occurance. It is my firm belief, however, that an ideology, such as religion, need not specifically be a theistic one in order to work effectively in functional society. When society combats a perceived evil, it does so because society believes in something period. Belief in God/Gods/supernatural is not exclusively what society fixes (balances) when it views something as problematic.

[Hulkein]

Most of the leadership from many of the nations knew about the Holocaust and didn't really care until they saw a threat to their own welfare.

At that point it became much more of a cause to unite against the Nazi's.

That's absolutely true. If society has a reaction to something, God/Gods/supernatural don't necessarily have to be thrown into the equation for a reciprocal action to occur.

Getting back on subject, I'll be the first one to admit it, I really despise gambling. Under this president, almost any financial course of action has become a gamble.

I have seen countless companies undergo unprecedented metamorphosis with regard to stock option investment. When relatively new literature is adopted exceedingly rapidly with respects to investment plans, I would expect uncertainty within individuals who have been afflicted by the economy this president has fucked up, such is not the case. Fixed-interest stocks are a wonderful example of a tool that can be helpfully provided to individuals who have been screwed. What a perfect oppurtunity for someone in a time of crisis to manage their financial burdens with this wonderful option!

When I see dressed-up agendas getting served in aid-form, I get just a *tad* irritated. I might not be stupid enough to not realize 10% stock transfer penalizations asterisked in fine print within fixed-interest stock investment documentation, but then again, I've been graced with the ability to question stupid people who have been afflicted more so than I have by these changes. These stupid people should, of course, be punished maliciously by these financial burdens because their government isn't responsible for educating someone in Bush-a-nomics.

I cannot begin to express how impressed I was when this president was kind enough to give every good taxpaying citizen a $600 dollar cheque! As we all know, the upper tax-bracket has been in constant peril because of how unfairly this administration is treating them. Unfortunately, every taxpayer must receive this luxury regardless of how unluxurious their lifestyle may be. So even though taxes have ended up costing $2000 more because of withdrawals by our wonderful administration, knowing that we've received $600 dollars is what we should really be thankful for. With that kind of money, you could invest in privatized funding.

Lastly, something that keeps me scratching my head is the concept of double taxation. I'd like to know what kind of drugs a human brain needs to be sopped up with in order for the screws to turn, just so, that it thinks having taxes and then, strangely, legislature that permits the independent taxation of social security cheques is actually a positive thing.

.
.
.

Again, the best thing about this president is that he cannot be elected again.

[Edited on 5-7-2005 by Stanley Burrell]

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Hulkein

Originally posted by DeV

Originally posted by Farquar
There's a reason that the overwhelming majority of university professors and most educated people in our society are liberal-dems . These individuals share an identity with a party that they believe has a developed social, environmental, and fiscal conscience, much like themselves. By cruel design of nature however, the enlightened are always to be in the minority. Brilliant.

What's brilliant is the amazing amounts of uneducated crackheads and lowlives that also identify with the party.

More people with a BA or BS vote republican than democrat.

More Brilliant.

LMAO.. so much for "THE SMART PEOPLE VOTE DEMOCRAT!"

:lol:

[Back]

Bush-a-nomics. You got that right. No other word can describe it better than tax and spend.

[ElanthianSiren]

Originally posted by Parkbandit

Originally posted by Hulkein

Originally posted by DeV

Originally posted by Farquar
There's a reason that the overwhelming majority of university professors and most educated people in our society are liberal-dems . These individuals share an identity with a party that they believe has a developed social, environmental, and fiscal conscience, much like themselves. By cruel design of nature however, the enlightened are always to be in the minority. Brilliant.

What's brilliant is the amazing amounts of uneducated crackheads and lowlives that also identify with the party.

More people with a BA or BS vote republican than democrat.

More Brilliant.

LMAO.. so much for "THE SMART PEOPLE VOTE DEMOCRAT!"

:lol:

Actually, PB, I think they are referring to a voter turnout breakdown that showed that the higher income areas/states went blue, while lower income areas went red last election. I believe it was further broken down by county. Higher income generally, not always, comes with higher scholastic accomplishment.

-Meilssa

[ElanthianSiren]

Originally posted by Backlash
Bush-a-nomics. You got that right. No other word can describe it better than tax and spend.

Also called voodoo economics. The market is currently a trader's market. I know I sure as hell would not like to be the poor investor stuck in ebay after they reported earnings last (stock went from a 59.00 stock to a 30.00 stock) or heck... the TASR investor (stock went from a 28.00 stock after a 2:1 split to a 7.00 stock). ... No I got it, how about the PII investor! You'd only be down about 20.00 in that one if you invested within the last half year. Oh but RIMM is competition for PII and is stealing all of their business! Eeernt!! sorry! no. Rimm was an 82.00 stock and is now a 66.000 stock. BTW all of these figures took those plunges from Jan 1st of this year.

One of the best weapons we have in this market is the ability to short stocks; my short to long ratio is about 4:1. One of the crappiest things is that I can't always get shares.

-Melissa

edited because I wanted to look up the precise pricing figures.



[Edited on Sat, May th, 2005 by ElanthianSiren]

[DeV]

Originally posted by Hulkein
What's brilliant is the amazing amounts of uneducated crackheads and lowlives that also identify with the party.

More people with a BA or BS vote republican than democrat. Yes, and some of the nation's poorest counties, especially southern border states, are Republican strongholds. Interesting how that works for both parties.

I don't believe Farquar's statement was reflective of those with either BA or BS degrees. More specifically, he was referring to the well educated professionals (lawyers, doctors, scientists, and academics). He can correct me if I'm wrong.

[DeV]

Originally posted by Parkbandit
More Brilliant.

LMAO.. so much for "THE SMART PEOPLE VOTE DEMOCRAT!"

:lol: Except when it's THE SMART PEOPLE VOTE REPUBLICAN! Riiight.
Originally posted by Ganalon
:lol: Far from it Farqar - she doesnt go to church at all. She was comically what we referred to as a 'tree hugger' in our family until recently.

She was the ONLY member of our family that used to be Democratic. The rest of us were always just a little smarter than that. I think it was because she was a late blooming hippie.

Offense not really taken though. She's moved over from that dark side and thats all that counts. hahahahahahahaha. And yes, she voted for Bush - BOTH TIMES!

Perhaps in 3 years the democrats can nominate someone smart enough to beat out the Republicans. Perhaps you could enter in the ballot and lead us all into enlightenment. :lol: I guess this is all the argument it takes.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by DeV

Originally posted by Parkbandit
More Brilliant.

LMAO.. so much for "THE SMART PEOPLE VOTE DEMOCRAT!"

:lol: Except when it's THE SMART PEOPLE VOTE REPUBLICAN! Riiight.

I never made the claim.. just making fun of someone who did. The truth is, there are smart people on both sides and there are dumb people on both sides. I don't feel that IQ is a determining factor in one's political affiliation.

[Edited on 5-7-05 by Parkbandit]

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by ElanthianSiren

Originally posted by Backlash
Bush-a-nomics. You got that right. No other word can describe it better than tax and spend.

Also called voodoo economics. The market is currently a trader's market. I know I sure as hell would not like to be the poor investor stuck in ebay after they reported earnings last (stock went from a 59.00 stock to a 30.00 stock) or heck... the TASR investor (stock went from a 28.00 stock after a 2:1 split to a 7.00 stock). ... No I got it, how about the PII investor! You'd only be down about 20.00 in that one if you invested within the last half year. Oh but RIMM is competition for PII and is stealing all of their business! Eeernt!! sorry! no. Rimm was an 82.00 stock and is now a 66.000 stock. BTW all of these figures took those plunges from Jan 1st of this year.

One of the best weapons we have in this market is the ability to short stocks; my short to long ratio is about 4:1. One of the crappiest things is that I can't always get shares.

-Melissa

edited because I wanted to look up the precise pricing figures.



[Edited on Sat, May th, 2005 by ElanthianSiren]

Ebay wasn't a good buy at $60.. but sure is at $30.

Sorry, I don't blame Bush on Ebay's poor financial performance first quarter... or it's inflated stock price.

[ElanthianSiren]

Originally posted by Parkbandit

Ebay wasn't a good buy at $60.. but sure is at $30.

Sorry, I don't blame Bush on Ebay's poor financial performance first quarter... or it's
inflated stock price.

Well, if it was just ebay, I would agree on a principle level. Take a slower-moving index stock if you like then -- QQQQ, which is a basket of the financial community's top performing 100 tech stocks. On the 1st, it was almost 40.00. It's now 36. You can even take the S&P 500, the ER, or the ES if you like to look at the mini's. They are all underperforming.

-Melissa

Ps. You can also buy ebay 10.00 below its current 200 day moving average if you want, but statistically, you're taking a far larger gamble, as the most money is proven made above (long) and below (short) the 200 day MA's. Buying at "cheap" is a good way to lose your port. I'd wait until it's over 41.50.

[DeV]

Originally posted by Parkbandit
I never made the claim.. just making fun of someone who did.
I never made the claim either. Farquar's post was riding off the back of Ganalon's initial post, which I quoted above.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by ElanthianSiren

Originally posted by Parkbandit

Ebay wasn't a good buy at $60.. but sure is at $30.

Sorry, I don't blame Bush on Ebay's poor financial performance first quarter... or it's
inflated stock price.

Well, if it was just ebay, I would agree on a principle level. Take a slower-moving index stock if you like then -- QQQQ, which is a basket of the financial community's top performing 100 tech stocks. On the 1st, it was almost 40.00. It's now 36. You can even take the S&P 500, the ER, or the ES if you like to look at the mini's. They are all underperforming.

-Melissa

Ps. You can also buy ebay 10.00 below its current 200 day moving average if you want, but statistically, you're taking a far larger gamble, as the most money is proven made above (long) and below (short) the 200 day MA's. Buying at "cheap" is a good way to lose your port. I'd wait until it's over 41.50.

LOL.. so you put the blame of today's economy squarely on the shoulders of Bush?

That's like saying Clinton was responsible for the booming economy of his presidency. Both stupid and show a clear misunderstanding of how the economy of the country works.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by ElanthianSiren
Ps. You can also buy ebay 10.00 below its current 200 day moving average if you want, but statistically, you're taking a far larger gamble, as the most money is proven made above (long) and below (short) the 200 day MA's. Buying at "cheap" is a good way to lose your port. I'd wait until it's over 41.50.

:?:

I'm not a day trader or anything.. I merely watch my 401K and my modest portfolio.. so a stock expert I am most certainly not.

But why again would I NOT buy Ebay at 30 and wait for it to get above 41.50? I always thought it was a GOOD idea to buy stocks when they are under valued and cheap.

500 shares of Ebay at $30 will cost you $15000.00

500 shares of Ebay at $41.50 will cost you $20,750.00

If I wait, I'll already lose the $5,750 net gain of the stock to your purchase price. Why?

[ElanthianSiren]

Originally posted by Parkbandit
:?:

I'm not a day trader or anything.. I merely watch my 401K and my modest portfolio.. so a stock expert I am most certainly not.

But why again would I NOT buy Ebay at 30 and wait for it to get above 41.50? I always thought it was a GOOD idea to buy stocks when they are under valued and cheap.

Over the 200 day EMA, your investment/trade has a higher chance of sticking and continuing upward. There is often a lot of price rejection at the 200 and 260 moving averages. 200 day is the more aggressive entry, 260 would be the better long term entry, with a stop just below the entry or just below the 200 day moving average.

We don't know if Ebay isn't going to crash to 27.00 tomorrow. I'm not saying the stock will continue upward, (I have nooo idea), but I am saying if it does continue upward, the highest yield/lowest risk buy would be above the 200 or 260 moving average.

You'd then use a fib grid to take retracement levels from the swing highs in late march or early february. Those are your points of resistence, and you would keep moving your stop upward accordingly until you stopped out green.

TASR is a very good example of why you'd not buy a rally under the 200 day moving average. On 1/28 the daily candle for TASR looks like a rise. The stock cost 18.00 and was just below its 200 day moving average at 20.00. TASR closed friday at 9.00 and something.

Conversely, if you'd bought TASR on 8/30 of 2004 as it crossed the 200 day moving average (at 13.40) and held for 3 months, you were a VERY happy investor/swing trader. You almost tripled your money with candles closing all in the 31-32.00 range for the next few days.

I don't blame the failing economy squarely on Bush AT ALL; the economy and world markets move in swings. They always have and always will, but I also don't put its potential recovery on Bush or Bush's policies as was the original insinuation of this thread.

-Melissa

[Back]

If you were stock savvy you'd buy oil. Even now at its inflated price it will go up as the supply goes down.

If its good enough for the Bushes...

[Gan]

Historically Democrats have followed a fiscal policy where the government regulates the economy by taxing and legislation, this was true in their adaption of Keyensian economics back in the 60's after abandoning the gold standard. It was a bad idea then (and it still is now re: Keynesian economics), it led to the mistakes that Nixon and LBJ made that then led to the major recession we faced in the 70's. It wasnt until Regan came in and with the help of his advisors, adopted more of a Freedman approach and follwed with a monetary policy theory, and the empowerment of the Fed, which eventually led to the boom of the 80's (even with the small recessions that occurred in the early half of the decade). Yes it was trickle down economics but it worked for the times. Clinton rode on that high through his term (and took credit for it publically) and the nearsighted public attributed the healthy economy to Clinton instead of where it really was due - which was during the Regan era. Bush Sr. just followed through with Regans direction so he is due some credit for maintaining the path but not the majority.

Some economists say that policy enacted in any particular administration will not be felt until at least 6 years later. I dont have an accurate source for that, its just something that was thrown out in discussion during one of my economic classes from one of my professors. However, it seems to appear somewhat accurate based on what we've seen thus far combined with a cyclic economy. Hence the idea that policy made in one particular administration does not accurately reflect the efforts of that leadership as judged by how the economy is acting presently. Additionally cyclic economies do respond to stimuli (foreigh and domestic) so saying its a market force all its own is not entirely accurate. However, Freedman'ist theory does call for limited involvement between the market and the government, which has been the prevailing method of management by the Fed since Regan's era despite the Democrats love for instituting taxes.

I was also being very glib when I eluded that smart people aligned themselves with one party or the next (and I wasnt the first to persue this in this thread). Please take it in context. It takes all kinds to fairly represent the american population to a political party - educated and uneducated. If the founding fathers had full faith that the population would elect their governing officals then they would not have implemented the electoral college.

[Edited on 5-7-2005 by Ganalon]

[Back]

The same old motto of the republican party.

“If it was good, it was us. If it was bad, it was the democrats.”

Bullshit

[Gan]

Originally posted by Backlash
The same old motto of the republican party.

“If it was good, it was us. If it was bad, it was the democrats.”

Bullshit

[Farquar]

Originally posted by Hulkein
What's brilliant is the amazing amounts of uneducated crackheads and lowlives that also identify with the party.

More people with a BA or BS vote republican than democrat.

The percentage gap between D and R voters with bachelor's degrees was close, but I believe the last poll I saw showed Republicans having a slight edge. The difference moved in favor of the Dems when going up to Masters level, and vastly in favor of the Dems when going up to Phd level (around 75/25 from what I can remember).

The poor and uneducated side with the Democratic party because they have the most to gain. Democrats emphasize greater wealth distribution and educational opportunities, developed welfare and health care programs, and are less friendly towards large corporations. These are clearly appealing to that particular subset of the population.

The educated (lawyers, doctors, scientists, professors, as Dev mentioned) identify with the party because we have the most to lose: namely a civilized society where we value the environment, recognize the separation of church and state, respect the role of an independent judiciary, checks and balances, and all that.

The founding fathers' justification for an electoral college probably can't be applied to modern day realities. The founding fathers were attempting to balance political and demographic factors, most of which are no longer extant: tensions between northern and southern sovereignty, states with large numbers of possible slave-constituents, a significant non-literate population, a primarily agricultural society with limited diffusion of news and information, a country with a limited educational system, etc.

[Gan]

And another!

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Backlash
The same old motto of the republican party.

“If it was good, it was us. If it was bad, it was the democrats.”

Bullshit

Actually, both parties use that same motto.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Farquar

The percentage gap between D and R voters with bachelor's degrees was close, but I believe the last poll I saw showed Republicans having a slight edge. The difference moved in favor of the Dems when going up to Masters level, and vastly in favor of the Dems when going up to Phd level (around 75/25 from what I can remember).

The poor and uneducated side with the Democratic party because they have the most to gain. Democrats emphasize greater wealth distribution and educational opportunities, developed welfare and health care programs, and are less friendly towards large corporations. These are clearly appealing to that particular subset of the population.

The educated (lawyers, doctors, scientists, professors, as Dev mentioned) identify with the party because we have the most to lose: namely a civilized society where we value the environment, recognize the separation of church and state, respect the role of an independent judiciary, checks and balances, and all that.

The founding fathers' justification for an electoral college probably can't be applied to modern day realities. The founding fathers were attempting to balance political and demographic factors, most of which are no longer extant: tensions between northern and southern sovereignty, states with large numbers of possible slave-constituents, a significant non-literate population, a primarily agricultural society with limited diffusion of news and information, a country with a limited educational system, etc.


Originally posted by Parkbandit I don't feel that IQ is a determining factor in one's political affiliation.

[ElanthianSiren]

Originally posted by Farquar

The founding fathers' justification for an electoral college probably can't be applied to modern day realities. The founding fathers were attempting to balance political and demographic factors, most of which are no longer extant: tensions between northern and southern sovereignty, states with large numbers of possible slave-constituents, a significant non-literate population, a primarily agricultural society with limited diffusion of news and information, a country with a limited educational system, etc.

I disagree. The founding fathers used the electoral college as a way to ensure that political situations would not degenerate into a 10 party popular system vote in the U.S.

This happened in Germany and elected Adoph Hitler. Now, the founding fathers didn't know about Hitler, but they were smart guys all around.

I still see a use for the electoral college as a system of checks and balances. I wouldn't throw it out just because it did't mesh with the popular vote twice (that spring to mind) in the 1900s.

-Melissa

[Back]

Originally posted by Parkbandit

Originally posted by Backlash
The same old motto of the republican party.

“If it was good, it was us. If it was bad, it was the democrats.”

Bullshit

Actually, both parties use that same motto.

That is simply not true. You want people to believe that. The lowest common denominator should not be the measure.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Backlash

Originally posted by Parkbandit

Originally posted by Backlash
The same old motto of the republican party.

“If it was good, it was us. If it was bad, it was the democrats.”

Bullshit

Actually, both parties use that same motto.

That is simply not true. You want people to believe that. The lowest common denominator should not be the measure.

You are either blind to the facts or ignorant to the facts. You are the fucking poster boy for the motto.

The REALITY is, both parties use that same bullshit tactic to shed bad light on the other party and to shed good light on their party.

I'm not surprised you can't see this though. Not surprised in the least.

[Back]

Maybe. Still, dems aren’t as skilled at character assassination as repubs are. Cam you admit that?

And yes, I live in a naive world. Its pretty nice actually. More people should get on board the :heart: train.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Backlash
Maybe. Still, dems aren’t as skilled at character assassination as repubs are. Cam you admit that?

And yes, I live in a naive world. Its pretty nice actually. More people should get on board the :heart: train.

Aren't as skilled? I think they've done an excellent job of painting George Bush as a retard draft dodger that only went to Iraq for oil for his buddies in S.A. and Haliburton. There are many unintelligent people that believe that very thing, so I think they've done a pretty good job.

And sorry.. if I want to play a fantasy game, I'll play WoW. I would rather live in reality than your "We should put a wealth cap on everyone" land where logic and common sense takes a back seat to liberalism.

[Back]

The record speaks for itself. I wont argue that.

I know you are playing devil’s advocate. The jig is up. Obviously, at least to me anyway, Capitalism means assholes rule. That is in no way congruent with natural selection.

[Farquar]

Originally posted by ElanthianSiren

Originally posted by Farquar

The founding fathers' justification for an electoral college probably can't be applied to modern day realities. The founding fathers were attempting to balance political and demographic factors, most of which are no longer extant: tensions between northern and southern sovereignty, states with large numbers of possible slave-constituents, a significant non-literate population, a primarily agricultural society with limited diffusion of news and information, a country with a limited educational system, etc.

I disagree. The founding fathers used the electoral college as a way to ensure that political situations would not degenerate into a 10 party popular system vote in the U.S.

This happened in Germany and elected Adoph Hitler. Now, the founding fathers didn't know about Hitler, but they were smart guys all around.

I still see a use for the electoral college as a system of checks and balances. I wouldn't throw it out just because it did't mesh with the popular vote twice (that spring to mind) in the 1900s.

-Melissa

I never said the college wasn't useful today, I just said that many of the factors originally motivating its creation are no longer present.

As to your 10-party explanation, that's what I refer to as a "face" justification. Stated differently, that's the straightforward, easy to understand and simple to defend explanation, much like "slavery" is the face justification for the civil war. One sees what happened in post WWI Germany and applies that justification in hindsight to the founding fathers thought process. It's always comforting to attirbute genius to geniuses though, so its easy to say "wow, glad they thought of that." American politics has always been a 2 (sometimes 3) party system, however. It's part of the culture and ingrained in the David v. Goliath, Good v. Evil mentality that underlies any conflict the country has ever engaged in. I don't think the founding fathers ever saw a huge danger in mass party elections, although they did incorporate a system to protect against it.

I've read through most of the transcripts of the constitutional convention when I was in college and some while in law school. In my opinion, my stated factors were at least as significant as your explanation in creating the EC, if not more so. Of course, there is never just one reason to creating such a system.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Backlash
The record speaks for itself. I wont argue that.

I know you are playing devil’s advocate. The jig is up. Obviously, at least to me anyway, Capitalism means assholes rule. That is in no way congruent with natural selection.

I'm not playing devil's advocate.. I simply understand politics better than you. I'm not completely blinded by either party to follow them with blinders on.

If you don't like capitalism.. may I suggest you move to somewhere better like China or Cuba?

[Farquar]

Originally posted by Parkbandit I don't feel that IQ is a determining factor in one's political affiliation.


IQ isn't education level. Frankly, I don't believe in a hard IQ. The number of years one has been in post-graduate education, however, does factor somewhat into political affiliation, in my opinion. There may be a circular explanation to the system though, since liberals may be more likely to go to post grad school, hence their overrepresentation.

[Gan]

Originally posted by Backlash
The record speaks for itself. I wont argue that.

I know you are playing devil’s advocate. The jig is up. Obviously, at least to me anyway, Capitalism means assholes rule. That is in no way congruent with natural selection.

Amazing, just utterly amazing. You can thank capitalism for maintaining the economy after WWII pulled the US out of depression. You can thank capitalism for encouraging others to further their education in order to further their own personal goals for personal growth (including material acquisition like homes, cars, modern appliances, etc.). Without capitalism the only forum you'd likely be participating in would be with a group of fellow tree huggers singing cum bae ya around a campfire wearing hemp undergarmets instead of sitting in your comfortable climate controlled home typing away on your capitalist supported computer.

Now I understand to an even greater detail your McCarthy'ism remark you made earlier. I suppose that if the US is indeed the great satan then it only makes since that its the fault of capitalism because of its inherent evil nature.

Assholes indeed! :lol:

[Back]

Originally posted by Parkbandit

Originally posted by Backlash
The record speaks for itself. I wont argue that.

I know you are playing devil’s advocate. The jig is up. Obviously, at least to me anyway, Capitalism means assholes rule. That is in no way congruent with natural selection.

I'm not playing devil's advocate.. I simply understand politics better than you. I'm not completely blinded by either party to follow them with blinders on.

If you don't like capitalism.. may I suggest you move to somewhere better like China or Cuba?

You don't have to worry about that. I USED to think I was an American Democrat. But these days, I may as well be a terrorist. Phuc that. I don’t want any part of hate as a credo.

[Hulkein]

Why do you keep saying phuc instead of fuck like there is some sort of a curse filter?

[Back]

Its Edaarin’s middle name.

I done reckon that Mister Bush is almost as honest as I.

[Gan]

Originally posted by Farquar

Originally posted by Parkbandit I don't feel that IQ is a determining factor in one's political affiliation.


IQ isn't education level. Frankly, I don't believe in a hard IQ. The number of years one has been in post-graduate education, however, does factor somewhat into political affiliation, in my opinion. There may be a circular explanation to the system though, since liberals may be more likely to go to post grad school, hence their overrepresentation.

It could also be postulated that liberals tend to move onto grad school because they are quite afraid of corperate America (the great republican domain) and decide to hide in liberal institutions for longer periods of time while squandering their parents hard earned money.

I know several classmates who fit this exact model, and they are working on their docterate now. (PhD... Piled higher and Deeper) They were the first to run to an anti-government rally/demonstration or other protest, and yet last to provide reasonable solutions for the problems they were so quick to point out. While I admire them for their dedication to education; I do not respect it as much as if someone were to achieve their post grad degrees while actually putting some real world work under their belt. It sucks to hide from life by staying in school as long as you can for that exact reason.

Thats why I laugh at MBA's who are fresh out of school with no practical experience and yet expect you to agree with everything they say because of their non-work achievements.

So even then post-grad degrees do not belay intelligence or practical wisdom in every case.

[Gan]

Originally posted by Plunkitt of Tammany Hall
I done reckon that Mister Bush is almost as honest as I.

“George W. Plunkitt. He Seen His Opportunities, and He Took ‘Em.”

I think Martha Stewart tried the same defense against the SEC charges that were levied against her.

Nice call though - you have touched on American Capitalism at its roots. Funny thing is both sides of the political fence observe this brand of opportunism.

[Back]

"As people do better, they start voting like Republicans - unless they have too much education and vote Democratic, which proves there can be too much of a good thing"

Karl Rove. The jigs up.

[Edited on 5-7-2005 by Backlash]

[CrystalTears]

Originally posted by Ganalon
Thats why I laugh at MBA's who are fresh out of school with no practical experience and yet expect you to agree with everything they say because of their non-work achievements.


Going :offtopic:

Ever see that FedEx commercial where a fresh out of school MBA guy gets a new job and the first task they have him do is ship out packages. He says, "But I have an MBA." and the woman says, "Oh an MBA. I'll show you how to do it then." :D

And now back to your regular political bitching.

[Farquar]

Originally posted by Ganalon
Thats why I laugh at MBA's who are fresh out of school with no practical experience and yet expect you to agree with everything they say because of their non-work achievements.


George W. Bush, M.B.A. extraordinaire.

Couldn't have put it better myself.

[Gan]

Not like he owned a MLB team, served as Govenor for a few years or anything. Yea, he is a complete rookie to leadership and politics. Not perfect mind you but yea, a complete rookie. [/sarcasm]

Way to take something out of context.

:lol:

[DeV]

Originally posted by Ganalon
Way to take something out of context.
As if.

It was a very fitting example.

[Latrinsorm]

Real fitting example if you consider 20+ years fresh out of school.

[DeV]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm
Real fitting example if you consider 20+ years fresh out of school. It's a good thing I don't, and consider fresh out of school to be exactly what it says.

[CrystalTears]

So how is stating that Bush is fresh out of high school a fitting example when he clearly wasn't and that's what Ganalon was referring to as far as MBAs?

[Gan]

W graduated from Yale in 68.

W graduated from HBS with his MBA in 75.

Formed energy company in 77, merged with another in 84, taken over by a third in 86.

Took stock profits from takeover and invested in MLB baseball team in 89.

Defeated incumbant Democrat for Govenor race of Texas in 94.

Wins re-election of Govenor race in 98. Sells MLB stock for profit.

Wins Presidential race in 2000 and then again in 2004.

source:
http://www.harbus.org/media/paper343/news/2001/01/22/Features/George.W.Bush.Timeline-23881.shtml
____________________________________________

Yea, I'd say he's a wet behind the ears rookie MBA student.

:lol:

[DeV]

Originally posted by CrystalTears
So how is stating that Bush is fresh out of high school a fitting example when he clearly wasn't and that's what Ganalon was referring to as far as MBAs? You'd have to ask Farquar exactly what he was referring to. As for me agreeing with his statement, if you don't know the context in which I found it to be fitting then I can understand your question.

I found it to be a tad humorous when considering his "successes" directly after receiving his MBA. I found Ganalon's post to be open-ended and therefore open to interpretation even though he only makes reference to "liberals". When examining Bush's endeavors I found it to fit the profile, so to speak.

My reply had no bearing on his former governorship or former and current presidency.