On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 07:00:12 GMT, "alohacyberian"
<alohacyberian@no-spam> wrote:
>"nobody" <nobody@no-spam> wrote in message
>news:nobody-04660E.23265229062003@no-spam
>> In article
>> <jcyLa.27534$0v4.2075400@no-spam>,
>> "alohacyberian" <alohacyberian@no-spam> wrote:
>> > "nobody" <nobody@no-spam> wrote in message
>> > news:nobody-DC444C.22132728062003@no-spam
>> > > In article
>> > > <Pine.LNX.4.44.0306262213200.14183-100000@no-spam>,
>> > > Bill Shatzer <bshatzer@no-spam> wrote:
>> > > > On Fri, 27 Jun 2003, nobody wrote:
>> > > > > Bill Shatzer <bshatzer@no-spam> wrote:
>> > > > > > On Tue, 24 Jun 2003, Thomas wrote:
>> > > > Math is not yer strong suit, I see.
>> > >
>> > > Oh, is 3.4 plus 1.8 plus 1.2 not equal to 6.4?
>> > >
>> > That isn't math, it's simple arithmetic. For Shatzer you must get out
>the
>> > wooden blocks and the crayons. Then, maybe, he can create another
>hypocrite.
>>
>> Will the arithmetically challenged Shatzer seems finally to have figured
>> out that he's wrong and slunk off with his tail between his legs.
>>
>Naw, just passed out. He'll be back with more comedy skits as soon as he
>recovers from the binge. KM
Since I was the one who challenged him to provide his source for those
figures numerous times, and he ducked every one, that piqued my
interest enough to research the matter in detail myself.
And guess what? I was right. He must 've made up those numbers
because the U.N. figures aren't even close.
The UNRWA website gives the following statistics:
Total Palestinian refugees worldwide: 1,708,507 registered
The U.N estimates that their field totals constitutes 3/4'ths of the
actual total which includes UN registered and all other unregistered
Palestinians.
If my math is correct, that would make the actual total of
Palestinians approx. 2.5 million. That's exactly what I predicted,
and a long, long way from Schatzer's claim of 10 million.
http://www.un.org/unrwa/publications/statis-01.html
ALOHA
Reply to group
(Unsolicited e-mail is deleted unread)
On Sun, 29 Jun 2003 22:25:49 -0700, Bill Shatzer
<bshatzer@no-spam> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>On Sun, 29 Jun 2003, Mike Pearson <see .sig> wrote:
>
>> nobody <nobody@no-spam> wrote:
>
>> > You're the one who thought that Al Gore got a majority of the popular
>> > vote.
>
>> Uh...he did; official federal government records show this.
>
>-snips-
>
>> (This is from the U.S. National Archives & Records Administration)
>
>> Gore: 50,996,582
>> Bush: 50,456,062
>
>Thus giving Gore a plurality but NOT a majority.
>
>The defenders of our appointed president never tire of carping about this
>little detail.
>
>Which doesn't obviate the fact that dubya was appointed and not
>elected.
>
>Generally, we suppose that appointed presidents are mostly found
>in Botswanaland and similar African locales which decline to Just
>Count All The Votes.
Uhhh.........duh. I hate to burst your bubble but the U.S. doesn't
elect President's according to the "popular vote", and never has. GWB
led the Electoral College vote, and that's all that counts. Gore
conceded, and George Bush IS the elected President.
Wipe your tears, suck it up, and get over it for pete's sake. If 2000
is all you Bush-bashers have to whine about, get ready for Bush's
second term, it's practically a lock.
ALOHA
Reply to group
(Unsolicited e-mail is deleted unread)
"Thomas" <mauicop@no-spam> wrote in message
news:bqj1gvkvg35pv78sskutc78h1nnobeovp0@no-spam
> On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 07:00:12 GMT, "alohacyberian"
> <alohacyberian@no-spam> wrote:
> >"nobody" <nobody@no-spam> wrote in message
> >news:nobody-04660E.23265229062003@no-spam
> >> In article
> >> <jcyLa.27534$0v4.2075400@no-spam>,
> >> "alohacyberian" <alohacyberian@no-spam> wrote:
> >> > "nobody" <nobody@no-spam> wrote in message
> >> > news:nobody-DC444C.22132728062003@no-spam
> >> > > In article
> >> > > <Pine.LNX.4.44.0306262213200.14183-100000@no-spam>,
> >> > > Bill Shatzer <bshatzer@no-spam> wrote:
> >> > > > On Fri, 27 Jun 2003, nobody wrote:
> >> > > > > Bill Shatzer <bshatzer@no-spam> wrote:
> >> > > > > > On Tue, 24 Jun 2003, Thomas wrote:
>
> Since I was the one who challenged him to provide his source for those
> figures numerous times, and he ducked every one, that piqued my
> interest enough to research the matter in detail myself.
>
> And guess what? I was right. He must 've made up those numbers
> because the U.N. figures aren't even close.
> The UNRWA website gives the following statistics:
> Total Palestinian refugees worldwide: 1,708,507 registered
>
> The U.N estimates that their field totals constitutes 3/4'ths of the
> actual total which includes UN registered and all other unregistered
> Palestinians.
> If my math is correct, that would make the actual total of
> Palestinians approx. 2.5 million. That's exactly what I predicted,
> and a long, long way from Schatzer's claim of 10 million.
>
> http://www.un.org/unrwa/publications/statis-01.html
>
There ya go, gettin' logical again and using *shudder* facts! KM
--
(-:alohacyberian:-) At my website there are 3000 live cameras or
visit NASA, play games, read jokes, send greeting cards & connect
to CNN news, NBA, the White House, Academy Awards or learn all
about Hawaii, Israel and more: http://keith.martin.home.att.net/
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"alohacyberian" <alohacyberian@no-spam> wrote in message
news:mBaMa.31229$0v4.2290318@no-spam
> "Thomas" <mauicop@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:fvk1gvomovk55v6j9f7qi8d529rh8vrku5@no-spam
> > On Sun, 29 Jun 2003 22:25:49 -0700, Bill Shatzer
> > <bshatzer@no-spam> wrote:
> > >On Sun, 29 Jun 2003, Mike Pearson <see .sig> wrote:
> > >> nobody <nobody@no-spam> wrote:
> > >Generally, we suppose that appointed presidents are mostly found
> > >in Botswanaland and similar African locales which decline to Just
> > >Count All The Votes.
> >
> > Uhhh.........duh. I hate to burst your bubble but the U.S. doesn't
> > elect President's according to the "popular vote", and never has. GWB
> > led the Electoral College vote, and that's all that counts. Gore
> > conceded, and George Bush IS the elected President.
> > Wipe your tears, suck it up, and get over it for pete's sake. If 2000
> > is all you Bush-bashers have to whine about, get ready for Bush's
> > second term, it's practically a lock.
> >
>
> Does this mean that the voters aren't going to buy the 25 billion words of
> hate, propaganda and lies about Bush which are ejaculating from the
Leftwing
> Liberals? KM
"Leftwing" and "Liberal" - just other names for "not nuts".
"Baxter" <lbax01.spaminator@no-spam> wrote in message
news:vg3a8ffa8g9adf@no-spam
> "alohacyberian" <alohacyberian@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:mBaMa.31229$0v4.2290318@no-spam
> > "Thomas" <mauicop@no-spam> wrote in message
> > news:fvk1gvomovk55v6j9f7qi8d529rh8vrku5@no-spam
> > > On Sun, 29 Jun 2003 22:25:49 -0700, Bill Shatzer
> > > <bshatzer@no-spam> wrote:
> > > >On Sun, 29 Jun 2003, Mike Pearson <see .sig> wrote:
> > > >> nobody <nobody@no-spam> wrote:
> > > Uhhh.........duh. I hate to burst your bubble but the U.S. doesn't
> > > elect President's according to the "popular vote", and never has. GWB
> > > led the Electoral College vote, and that's all that counts. Gore
> > > conceded, and George Bush IS the elected President.
> > > Wipe your tears, suck it up, and get over it for pete's sake. If 2000
> > > is all you Bush-bashers have to whine about, get ready for Bush's
> > > second term, it's practically a lock.
> >
> > Does this mean that the voters aren't going to buy the 25 billion words
of
> > hate, propaganda and lies about Bush which are ejaculating from the
> Leftwing
> > Liberals? KM
>
> "Leftwing" and "Liberal" - just other names for "not nuts".
>
Well, I'd never go so far as to claim the Leftwing Liberals have no nuts, but
I'll take it under advisement. KM
--
(-:alohacyberian:-) At my website there are 3000 live cameras or
visit NASA, play games, read jokes, send greeting cards & connect
to CNN news, NBA, the White House, Academy Awards or learn all
about Hawaii, Israel and more: http://keith.martin.home.att.net/
"Bill Shatzer" <bshatzer@no-spam> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.44.0307010117200.18661-100000@no-spam
> On Tue, 1 Jul 2003, alohacyberian wrote:
> > "Thomas" <mauicop@no-spam> wrote in message
> > that would make the actual total of
> > > Palestinians approx. 2.5 million. That's exactly what I predicted,
> > > and a long, long way from Schatzer's claim of 10 million.
>
> > > http://www.un.org/unrwa/publications/statis-01.html
>
> > There ya go, gettin' logical again and using *shudder* facts! KM
>
> Typed, no doubt hula boy, without actually visiting the referenced
> URL.
>
> You might try an actual follow up some time rather than jest taking
> things on faith 'cause they agree with yer preconceived biases.
>
> Had you done so, you would have seen that the referenced URL in
> no way supports Thomas' contention and, indeed, demonstrates
> EXACTLY the contrary.
>
> Assuming, of course, that your IQ and Thomas' IQ combined exceed
> that of a turnip's.
>
> Assuming the combined IQ's are approximately equal, you may well
> see what Thomas -thought- he saw.
>
> In which case, you are both Beyond All Hope.
>
> But, what the hell.
>
Do you realize that you didn't say anything? KM
--
(-:alohacyberian:-) At my website there are 3000 live cameras or
visit NASA, play games, read jokes, send greeting cards & connect
to CNN news, NBA, the White House, Academy Awards or learn all
about Hawaii, Israel and more: http://keith.martin.home.att.net/
"Bob Tiernan" <zulu.pacifier.com@no-spam> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.4.53MAILDIR.0307030005350.13611@no-spam
>
> Bill Shatzer wrote:
>
> > Thomas wrote:
>
>
> > > GWB led the Electoral College vote, and that's all that counts.
>
>
> > After the USSC awarded the dubya all of Florida's
> > electoral vote.
>
>
> The USSC simply declared (correctly) that the
> Florida Supreme Court went beyond its authorized
> powers when it *made legislation* from the bench
> (i.e. when it extended a deadline that was the
> job for the legislature to do). Florida had
> a deadline and a winner was declared at that time.
> Sorry about the screw-ups with the butterfly
> ballots and stuff, but that's the way it goes.
>
>
> Bob Tiernan
>
BT ... The SCOTUS clearly ruled incorrectly because the FL Constitution (say
aren't you this big State's rights person - so why do you support the SCOTUS
interfering in a State issue?) says that the paramount principle is that the
voter's intent be determined and all votes counted. The Dec 18 date is an
arbitrary and unnecessary administrative rule that really doesn't apply in
today's culture of instant communication.
In article <3f044e8a$1@no-spam>, "WinGuru" <anonymous> wrote:
> "Bob Tiernan" <zulu.pacifier.com@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:Pine.GSO.4.53MAILDIR.0307030005350.13611@no-spam
> >
> > Bill Shatzer wrote:
> >
> > > Thomas wrote:
> >
> >
> > > > GWB led the Electoral College vote, and that's all that counts.
> >
> >
> > > After the USSC awarded the dubya all of Florida's
> > > electoral vote.
> >
> >
> > The USSC simply declared (correctly) that the
> > Florida Supreme Court went beyond its authorized
> > powers when it *made legislation* from the bench
> > (i.e. when it extended a deadline that was the
> > job for the legislature to do). Florida had
> > a deadline and a winner was declared at that time.
> > Sorry about the screw-ups with the butterfly
> > ballots and stuff, but that's the way it goes.
> >
> >
> > Bob Tiernan
> >
>
> BT ... The SCOTUS clearly ruled incorrectly....
Ah, yet another proof by assertion.
"nobody" <nobody@no-spam> wrote in message
news:nobody-A9188E.21170003072003@no-spam
> In article <3f044e8a$1@no-spam>, "WinGuru" <anonymous> wrote:
> > "Bob Tiernan" <zulu.pacifier.com@no-spam> wrote in message
> > news:Pine.GSO.4.53MAILDIR.0307030005350.13611@no-spam
> > > Bill Shatzer wrote:
> >
> > BT ... The SCOTUS clearly ruled incorrectly....
>
> Ah, yet another proof by assertion.
>
And meaningless at that. What happened is history and can't be undone.
Pragmatic people will carry on and let the idealists live and squawk in the
past to no avail. KM
--
(-:alohacyberian:-) At my website there are 3000 live cameras or
visit NASA, play games, read jokes, send greeting cards & connect
to CNN news, NBA, the White House, Academy Awards or learn all
about Hawaii, Israel and more: http://keith.martin.home.att.net/
"Bob Tiernan" <zulu.pacifier.com@no-spam> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.4.53MAILDIR.0307040036180.26787@no-spam
> nobody wrote:
> > "WinGuru" <anonymous> wrote:
> > > "Bob Tiernan" wrote:
>
> Nobody, why do you bother replying to worthless
> posters like "Winguru"? I don't. You don't have to,
> either. Let 'em post all they want and never see
> a reply to any of their garbage.
>
> Bob T
>
I never read his trolls either, unless I download them by accident. He's the
type, like John Edward Robinson, who eventually end up posting only to
themselves. KM
--
(-:alohacyberian:-) At my website there are 3000 live cameras or
visit NASA, play games, read jokes, send greeting cards & connect
to CNN news, NBA, the White House, Academy Awards or learn all
about Hawaii, Israel and more: http://keith.martin.home.att.net/
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"alohacyberian" <alohacyberian@no-spam> wrote in message
news:G3cNa.35334$3o3.2582783@no-spam
> "nobody" <nobody@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:nobody-A9188E.21170003072003@no-spam
> > In article <3f044e8a$1@no-spam>, "WinGuru" <anonymous> wrote:
> > > "Bob Tiernan" <zulu.pacifier.com@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > news:Pine.GSO.4.53MAILDIR.0307030005350.13611@no-spam
> > > > Bill Shatzer wrote:
> > >
> > > BT ... The SCOTUS clearly ruled incorrectly....
> >
> > Ah, yet another proof by assertion.
> >
> And meaningless at that. What happened is history and can't be undone.
> Pragmatic people will carry on and let the idealists live and squawk in
the
> past to no avail. KM
The reason people continue to squawk is that they don't want the same thing
to happen in the next election. Once the *system* has been fixed, the
squawking will go away.
"Bob Tiernan" <zulu.pacifier.com@no-spam> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.4.53MAILDIR.0307040036180.26787@no-spam
>
> nobody wrote:
>
> > "WinGuru" <anonymous> wrote:
>
> > > "Bob Tiernan" wrote:
>
> > > > The USSC simply declared (correctly) that the
> > > > Florida Supreme Court went beyond its authorized
> > > > powers when it *made legislation* from the bench
> > > > (i.e. when it extended a deadline that was the
> > > > job for the legislature to do). Florida had
> > > > a deadline and a winner was declared at that time.
> > > > Sorry about the screw-ups with the butterfly
> > > > ballots and stuff, but that's the way it goes.
>
>
> > > BT ... The SCOTUS clearly ruled incorrectly....
>
>
> > Ah, yet another proof by assertion.
>
>
> Nobody, why do you bother replying to worthless
> posters like "Winguru"? I don't. You don't have to,
> either. Let 'em post all they want and never see
> a reply to any of their garbage.
>
> Bob T
Funny how you stopped responding when your slander and lies were challenged
and shown to be the falsehoods they are. You couldn't be honorable and
admit it could you? So, like the coward, you slink away and pretend it
never happened. Still waiting for you to admit that you lied about me.
Come on, it's not so hard. Just admit it and you can start posting again!
"Baxter" <lbax01.spaminator@no-spam> wrote in message
news:vgb7q0eph9tba0@no-spam
> "alohacyberian" <alohacyberian@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:G3cNa.35334$3o3.2582783@no-spam
> > "nobody" <nobody@no-spam> wrote in message
> > news:nobody-A9188E.21170003072003@no-spam
> > > In article <3f044e8a$1@no-spam>, "WinGuru" <anonymous> wrote:
> > > > "Bob Tiernan" <zulu.pacifier.com@no-spam> wrote in
message
> > > > news:Pine.GSO.4.53MAILDIR.0307030005350.13611@no-spam
> > > > > Bill Shatzer wrote:
> > > > BT ... The SCOTUS clearly ruled incorrectly....
> > >
> > > Ah, yet another proof by assertion.
> > >
> > And meaningless at that. What happened is history and can't be undone.
> > Pragmatic people will carry on and let the idealists live and squawk in
> the
> > past to no avail. KM
>
> The reason people continue to squawk is that they don't want the same thing
> to happen in the next election. Once the *system* has been fixed, the
> squawking will go away.
>
The system is the Electoral College. Work to change it or shut up. KM
--
(-:alohacyberian:-) At my website there are 3000 live cameras or
visit NASA, play games, read jokes, send greeting cards & connect
to CNN news, NBA, the White House, Academy Awards or learn all
about Hawaii, Israel and more: http://keith.martin.home.att.net/
"Baxter" <lbax01.spaminator@no-spam> wrote in message
news:vgb6vkjkbifg33@no-spam
> "Bob Tiernan" <zulu.pacifier.com@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:Pine.GSO.4.53MAILDIR.0307040036180.26787@no-spam
> > nobody wrote:
> > > "WinGuru" <anonymous> wrote:
> > > > "Bob Tiernan" wrote:
> >
> > Nobody, why do you bother replying to worthless
> > posters like "Winguru"? I don't. You don't have to,
> > either. Let 'em post all they want and never see
> > a reply to any of their garbage.
> >
> Ah, yes, Bob T would prefer the intellectual masturbation of like minds
over
> actually having to deal with real issues.
>
Oh, yes you're remark above is a classic example of a Leftwing Liberal
"discussing the issues". Nobody could possibly give the Leftwing Liberals
worse publicity than they freely give themselves, as evidenced by the idiocy
above. Keep up the good work, Bax, but, don't be disappointed on election
day, because you will have helped achieve the results. KM
--
(-:alohacyberian:-) At my website there are 3000 live cameras or
visit NASA, play games, read jokes, send greeting cards & connect
to CNN news, NBA, the White House, Academy Awards or learn all
about Hawaii, Israel and more: http://keith.martin.home.att.net/
Date: Sat, 05 Jul 2003 05:55:39 GMT
where? what idiocy? i don't see it ?
> as evidenced by the idiocy
> above. Keep up the good work, Bax, but, don't be disappointed on election
> day, because you will have helped achieve the results. KM
alohacyberian <alohacyberian@no-spam> wrote:
> "Paul Mitchum" <usenet@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:1fxkkb7.1xgigce1au1qioN%usenet@no-spam
> > alohacyberian <alohacyberian@no-spam> wrote:
> > > "Paul Mitchum" <usenet@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > news:1fxjqff.1w3dmgn12bdx9jN%usenet@no-spam
> > > > Thomas <mauicop@no-spam> wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, 3 Jul 2003 08:40:57 -0700, "WinGuru" <anonymous> wrote:
> > > > [..]
> > > > > The Democrats strategy of endless court challenges until they
> > > > > could manipulate themselves into the winner failed miserably, and
> > > > > the fact that there are still whining crybabies howling about it
> > > > > three years later is g'damned funny. It makes those who are still
> > > > > whining look like nutcases, so keep it up, thanks to you and your
> > > > > ilk, GWB is a lock for a second term. Again, thanks.
> > > >
> > > > The sad part is that you're willing to appear so ignorant about the
> > > > workings of your government.
> > >
> > > Paul, we can always count on you for a bellylaugh. What Thomas sees
> > > and discusses is what actually happened [..]
> >
> > Actually, no. You're wrong.
>
> You mean Al Gore is the president of the United States?
Why would that follow from what I said?
> Gawrsh, why hasn't the media reported it? Is it yet another *gasp* vast
> rightwing conspiracy? Whatever will we do? But, thanks for the reality
> check! KM
I hope you're enjoying yourself, because from here you're looking like
nothin but pathetic.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"alohacyberian" <alohacyberian@no-spam> wrote in message
news:TPsNa.36741$0v4.2689644@no-spam
> "Baxter" <lbax01.spaminator@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:vgb7q0eph9tba0@no-spam
> > "alohacyberian" <alohacyberian@no-spam> wrote in message
> > news:G3cNa.35334$3o3.2582783@no-spam
> > > "nobody" <nobody@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > news:nobody-A9188E.21170003072003@no-spam
> > > > In article <3f044e8a$1@no-spam>, "WinGuru" <anonymous> wrote:
> > > > > "Bob Tiernan" <zulu.pacifier.com@no-spam> wrote in
> message
> > > > >
news:Pine.GSO.4.53MAILDIR.0307030005350.13611@no-spam
> > > > > > Bill Shatzer wrote:
> > > > > BT ... The SCOTUS clearly ruled incorrectly....
> > > >
> > > > Ah, yet another proof by assertion.
> > > >
> > > And meaningless at that. What happened is history and can't be
undone.
> > > Pragmatic people will carry on and let the idealists live and squawk
in
> > the
> > > past to no avail. KM
> >
> > The reason people continue to squawk is that they don't want the same
thing
> > to happen in the next election. Once the *system* has been fixed, the
> > squawking will go away.
> >
>
> The system is the Electoral College. Work to change it or shut up. KM
No, the *system* I'm talking about is: "counting the votes". That was not
done thanks to Bush.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"alohacyberian" <alohacyberian@no-spam> wrote in message
news:UPsNa.36742$0v4.2690383@no-spam
> "Baxter" <lbax01.spaminator@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:vgb6vkjkbifg33@no-spam
> > "Bob Tiernan" <zulu.pacifier.com@no-spam> wrote in message
> > news:Pine.GSO.4.53MAILDIR.0307040036180.26787@no-spam
> > > nobody wrote:
> > > > "WinGuru" <anonymous> wrote:
> > > > > "Bob Tiernan" wrote:
> > >
> > > Nobody, why do you bother replying to worthless
> > > posters like "Winguru"? I don't. You don't have to,
> > > either. Let 'em post all they want and never see
> > > a reply to any of their garbage.
> > >
> > Ah, yes, Bob T would prefer the intellectual masturbation of like minds
> over
> > actually having to deal with real issues.
> >
> Oh, yes you're remark above is a classic example of a Leftwing Liberal
> "discussing the issues". Nobody could possibly give the Leftwing Liberals
> worse publicity than they freely give themselves, as evidenced by the
idiocy
> above. Keep up the good work, Bax, but, don't be disappointed on election
> day, because you will have helped achieve the results. KM
Ah, yes - the old 'Vast Leftwing Conspiracy theory.
In article <vgb7q0eph9tba0@no-spam>,
"Baxter" <lbax01.spaminator@no-spam> wrote:
> --
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> "alohacyberian" <alohacyberian@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:G3cNa.35334$3o3.2582783@no-spam
> > "nobody" <nobody@no-spam> wrote in message
> > news:nobody-A9188E.21170003072003@no-spam
> > > In article <3f044e8a$1@no-spam>, "WinGuru" <anonymous> wrote:
> > > > "Bob Tiernan" <zulu.pacifier.com@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > > news:Pine.GSO.4.53MAILDIR.0307030005350.13611@no-spam
> > > > > Bill Shatzer wrote:
> > > >
> > > > BT ... The SCOTUS clearly ruled incorrectly....
> > >
> > > Ah, yet another proof by assertion.
> > >
> > And meaningless at that. What happened is history and can't be undone.
> > Pragmatic people will carry on and let the idealists live and squawk in
> the
> > past to no avail. KM
>
> The reason people continue to squawk is that they don't want the same thing
> to happen in the next election.
So who's squawking about what happened in the 2002 elections?
In article
<H3cNa.35335$3o3.2582995@no-spam>,
"alohacyberian" <alohacyberian@no-spam> wrote:
> "Bob Tiernan" <zulu.pacifier.com@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:Pine.GSO.4.53MAILDIR.0307040036180.26787@no-spam
> > nobody wrote:
> > > "WinGuru" <anonymous> wrote:
> > > > "Bob Tiernan" wrote:
> >
> > Nobody, why do you bother replying to worthless
> > posters like "Winguru"? I don't. You don't have to,
> > either. Let 'em post all they want and never see
> > a reply to any of their garbage.
> >
> > Bob T
> >
> I never read his trolls either, unless I download them by accident. He's the
> type, like John Edward Robinson, who eventually end up posting only to
> themselves. KM
Hey, what ever happened to John Edward Robinson. Did he bore himself to
death?
Date: Sun, 06 Jul 2003 03:21:56 GMT
Private Troll, nobody, went on and on and on and said...
> Hey, what ever happened to John Edward Robinson. Did he bore himself to
> death?
Isn't he that guy who talks to dead relatives on syndicated t.v. ?
Date: Sun, 06 Jul 2003 03:24:21 GMT
Private Troll, nobody, went on and on and on and said...
> So who's squawking about what happened in the 2002 elections?
squawk.
bushy fooled people into thinking that voting republican was
akin to mom's apple pie.
now the government is extracting maximum pain on the middle class
to build the plutocracy.
let's face it -- the concensus gave way. foreign competition is
too strong to preserve the american middle class's sinecure.
so the elite is saying -- you want a house and job -- swim. it
ain't guaranteed no more.
Date: Sun, 06 Jul 2003 03:28:07 GMT
Private Troll, nobody, went on and on and on and said...
> But the 2002 elections showed that the "people" were pretty satisfied
> with the 2000 elections, otherwise they'd have voted many of President
The Republicans had been saying -- give us a majority and
we'll fix things.
They got what they wanted.
The latest jobless figures shows that it didn't work.
Look for big Demo gains in Presidency and Congress in '04.
"nobody" <nobody@no-spam> wrote in message
news:nobody-9E9A87.22190505072003@no-spam
> In article <vgdu2q75rusfd7@no-spam>,
> "Baxter" <lbax01.spaminator@no-spam> wrote:
>
> > --
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >
> > "alohacyberian" <alohacyberian@no-spam> wrote in message
> > news:TPsNa.36741$0v4.2689644@no-spam
> > > "Baxter" <lbax01.spaminator@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > news:vgb7q0eph9tba0@no-spam
> > > > "alohacyberian" <alohacyberian@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > > news:G3cNa.35334$3o3.2582783@no-spam
> > > > > "nobody" <nobody@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > > > news:nobody-A9188E.21170003072003@no-spam
> > > > > > In article <3f044e8a$1@no-spam>, "WinGuru" <anonymous>
wrote:
> > > > > > > "Bob Tiernan" <zulu.pacifier.com@no-spam> wrote in
> > > message
> > > > > > >
> > news:Pine.GSO.4.53MAILDIR.0307030005350.13611@no-spam
> > > > > > > > Bill Shatzer wrote:
> > > > > > > BT ... The SCOTUS clearly ruled incorrectly....
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ah, yet another proof by assertion.
> > > > > >
> > > > > And meaningless at that. What happened is history and can't be
> > undone.
> > > > > Pragmatic people will carry on and let the idealists live and
squawk
> > in
> > > > the
> > > > > past to no avail. KM
> > > >
> > > > The reason people continue to squawk is that they don't want the
same
> > thing
> > > > to happen in the next election. Once the *system* has been fixed,
the
> > > > squawking will go away.
> > > >
> > >
> > > The system is the Electoral College. Work to change it or shut up.
KM
> >
> > No, the *system* I'm talking about is: "counting the votes". That was
not
> > done thanks to Bush.
>
>
> But the 2002 elections showed that the "people" were pretty satisfied
> with the 2000 elections, otherwise they'd have voted many of President
> Bush's party out of Congress. Instead they increased President Bush's
> party's representation in Congress. Doesn't sound like too many were
> unhappy with the 2000 elections.
It showed that they could be lied to and their fear taken advantage of.
That's all it showed.
"Baxter" <lbax01.spaminator@no-spam> wrote in message
news:vgdu2q75rusfd7@no-spam
> "alohacyberian" <alohacyberian@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:TPsNa.36741$0v4.2689644@no-spam
> > "Baxter" <lbax01.spaminator@no-spam> wrote in message
> > news:vgb7q0eph9tba0@no-spam
> > > "alohacyberian" <alohacyberian@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > news:G3cNa.35334$3o3.2582783@no-spam
> > > > "nobody" <nobody@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > > news:nobody-A9188E.21170003072003@no-spam
> > > > > In article <3f044e8a$1@no-spam>, "WinGuru" <anonymous> wrote:
> > > > > > "Bob Tiernan" <zulu.pacifier.com@no-spam> wrote in
> > message
> > > > > >
> news:Pine.GSO.4.53MAILDIR.0307030005350.13611@no-spam
> > > > > > > Bill Shatzer wrote:
> > > to happen in the next election. Once the *system* has been fixed, the
> > > squawking will go away.
> >
> > The system is the Electoral College. Work to change it or shut up. KM
>
> No, the *system* I'm talking about is: "counting the votes". That was not
> done thanks to Bush.
>
LOL! Thanks for the laugh! Shall we piss and moan about the Dred Scott
Decision? KM
--
(-:alohacyberian:-) At my website there are 3000 live cameras or
visit NASA, play games, read jokes, send greeting cards & connect
to CNN news, NBA, the White House, Academy Awards or learn all
about Hawaii, Israel and more: http://keith.martin.home.att.net/
"a gay blade" <a@no-spam> wrote in message
news:92a347d81cba63590c49baa85ada3a49@no-spam
> > as evidenced by the idiocy
> > above. Keep up the good work, Bax, but, don't be disappointed on
election
> > day, because you will have helped achieve the results. KM
>
> where? what idiocy? i don't see it ?
>
LOL! Yes, that's been evident since you began posting! KM
--
(-:alohacyberian:-) At my website there are 3000 live cameras or
visit NASA, play games, read jokes, send greeting cards & connect
to CNN news, NBA, the White House, Academy Awards or learn all
about Hawaii, Israel and more: http://keith.martin.home.att.net/
"nobody" <nobody@no-spam> wrote in message
news:nobody-587B02.22161205072003@no-spam
> In article <vgb7q0eph9tba0@no-spam>,
> "Baxter" <lbax01.spaminator@no-spam> wrote:
> > "alohacyberian" <alohacyberian@no-spam> wrote in message
> > news:G3cNa.35334$3o3.2582783@no-spam
> > > "nobody" <nobody@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > news:nobody-A9188E.21170003072003@no-spam
> > > > In article <3f044e8a$1@no-spam>, "WinGuru" <anonymous> wrote:
> > > > > "Bob Tiernan" <zulu.pacifier.com@no-spam> wrote in
message
> > > > >
news:Pine.GSO.4.53MAILDIR.0307030005350.13611@no-spam
> > > > > > Bill Shatzer wrote:
>
> So who's squawking about what happened in the 2002 elections?
>
Not me! KM
--
(-:alohacyberian:-) At my website there are 3000 live cameras or
visit NASA, play games, read jokes, send greeting cards & connect
to CNN news, NBA, the White House, Academy Awards or learn all
about Hawaii, Israel and more: http://keith.martin.home.att.net/
Date: Sun, 06 Jul 2003 12:25:42 GMT
The Manly Troll Hunk, codename, alohacyberian, breathed...
> No, maybe he's currently posting as "a gay blade" and boring everyone else
> to death. ;-) Naw, that's just TrollAIDS desperately begging for some
> little morsel of attention with the same success John Edward Robinson
physician, heal thyself.
Date: Sun, 06 Jul 2003 12:30:01 GMT
The Manly Troll Hunk, codename, alohacyberian, breathed...
> LOL! Thanks for the laugh! Shall we piss and moan about the Dred Scott
> Decision? KM
why don't you go under the covers with a flashlight and relieve
yourself with a glossy copy of Plessy vs. Fergusson?
In article <386bc17187d4b577d01bdaa7abca7098@no-spam>,
a gay blade <a@no-spam> wrote:
> Private Troll, nobody, went on and on and on and said...
>
> > So who's squawking about what happened in the 2002 elections?
>
> squawk.
>
> bushy fooled people into thinking that voting republican was
> akin to mom's apple pie.
And that's different from DemocRATic stratagy, how, other the this time
the DemocRATic strategy didn't succeed?
In article <3f07b7e4$1@no-spam>, "WinGuru" <anonymous> wrote:
> "nobody" <nobody@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:nobody-9E9A87.22190505072003@no-spam
> > In article <vgdu2q75rusfd7@no-spam>,
> > "Baxter" <lbax01.spaminator@no-spam> wrote:
> >
> > > --
> >
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
> >
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > >
> > > "alohacyberian" <alohacyberian@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > news:TPsNa.36741$0v4.2689644@no-spam
> > > > "Baxter" <lbax01.spaminator@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > > news:vgb7q0eph9tba0@no-spam
> > > > > "alohacyberian" <alohacyberian@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > > > news:G3cNa.35334$3o3.2582783@no-spam
> > > > > > "nobody" <nobody@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > > > > news:nobody-A9188E.21170003072003@no-spam
> > > > > > > In article <3f044e8a$1@no-spam>, "WinGuru" <anonymous>
> wrote:
> > > > > > > > "Bob Tiernan" <zulu.pacifier.com@no-spam> wrote in
> > > > message
> > > > > > > >
> > > news:Pine.GSO.4.53MAILDIR.0307030005350.13611@no-spam
> > > > > > > > > Bill Shatzer wrote:
> > > > > > > > BT ... The SCOTUS clearly ruled incorrectly....
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Ah, yet another proof by assertion.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > And meaningless at that. What happened is history and can't be
> > > undone.
> > > > > > Pragmatic people will carry on and let the idealists live and
> squawk
> > > in
> > > > > the
> > > > > > past to no avail. KM
> > > > >
> > > > > The reason people continue to squawk is that they don't want the
> same
> > > thing
> > > > > to happen in the next election. Once the *system* has been fixed,
> the
> > > > > squawking will go away.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > The system is the Electoral College. Work to change it or shut up.
> KM
> > >
> > > No, the *system* I'm talking about is: "counting the votes". That was
> not
> > > done thanks to Bush.
> >
> >
> > But the 2002 elections showed that the "people" were pretty satisfied
> > with the 2000 elections, otherwise they'd have voted many of President
> > Bush's party out of Congress. Instead they increased President Bush's
> > party's representation in Congress. Doesn't sound like too many were
> > unhappy with the 2000 elections.
>
> It showed that they could be lied to and their fear taken advantage of.
The DemocRATs showed that over all the year they controlled Congress.
In article <f319a291f520a539d8b7b547a7842843@no-spam>,
a gay blade <a@no-spam> wrote:
> Private Troll, nobody, went on and on and on and said...
>
> > But the 2002 elections showed that the "people" were pretty satisfied
> > with the 2000 elections, otherwise they'd have voted many of President
>
> The Republicans had been saying -- give us a majority and
> we'll fix things.
Which is what they're doing.
Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2003 05:28:27 GMT
Rabid Mets fan, Bill Shatzer, cheered ...
> Yes indeed. They have -truly- fixed things. They've turned a
> $200 billion budget surplus into a $400 billion (and counting)
keep going, keep going:
how about turning the longest post-war boom ( that is, the Clinton
Administration ) into the longest post-war DEPRESSION .
THATS RIGHT, IT'S A DEPRESSION. You Republicans need to take
responsibility. It's your Pres. It's your Senate. It's your
House -- and all you losers do is 'blame the Democrats'.
You know why? BECAUSE REPUBLICANS DON'T KNOW WHAT THE FUCK THEY ARE
DOING!!!! I mean what kind of idiots can create a 3 year bust IN HIGH
TECHNOLOGY!?!?! HOW STUPID CAN BU$H AND THE REPUBLICANS BE.
And the great thing is -- IT'S ENTIRELY THEIR FAULT. WOO HOO.
YOU BITCHES ARE GOING DOWN IN '04 !!!
GO KERRY GO KERRY GO KERRY
--
http://www.3wk.com http://www.mets.com
underground radio go ny mets ! ! !
In article
<Pine.LNX.4.44.0307062150020.20835-100000@no-spam>,
Bill Shatzer <bshatzer@no-spam> wrote:
> On Mon, 7 Jul 2003, nobody wrote:
>
> > a gay blade <a@no-spam> wrote:
> -snips-
> > > The Republicans had been saying -- give us a majority and
> > > we'll fix things.
>
> > Which is what they're doing.
>
> Yes indeed. They have -truly- fixed things. They've turned a
> $200 billion budget surplus into a $400 billion (and counting)
> budget deficit while watching two and one-half million Americans
> become unemployed.
Yeah, the dot com bubble burst. Hmmm? Under whose presidency did that
dot com bubble grow? Yep, slick Willie, all smoke and mirrors.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"nobody" <nobody@no-spam> wrote in message
news:nobody-C8249E.23071807072003@no-spam
> In article <21689c13530349686530971e64f8f3df@no-spam>,
> a gay blade <a@no-spam> wrote:
>
> > Rabid Mets fan, Bill Shatzer, cheered ...
> >
> > > Yes indeed. They have -truly- fixed things. They've turned a
> > > $200 billion budget surplus into a $400 billion (and counting)
> >
> > keep going, keep going:
> >
> > how about turning the longest post-war boom ( that is, the Clinton
> > Administration ) into the longest post-war DEPRESSION .
> >
> > THATS RIGHT, IT'S A DEPRESSION. You Republicans need to take
> > responsibility. It's your Pres. It's your Senate. It's your
> > House -- and all you losers do is 'blame the Democrats'.
>
>
> Yep, it was slick Willie's dot com bubble that burst.
On Bush's watch from Bush's pinprick. Do you like the fact that Bush is
eliminating overtime pay for millions of workers?
"nobody" <nobody@no-spam> wrote in message
news:nobody-C8249E.23071807072003@no-spam
> In article <21689c13530349686530971e64f8f3df@no-spam>,
> >
> > THATS RIGHT, IT'S A DEPRESSION. You Republicans need to take
> > responsibility. It's your Pres. It's your Senate. It's your
> > House -- and all you losers do is 'blame the Democrats'.
>
> Yep, it was slick Willie's dot com bubble that burst.
>
Depression? More hysterical hyperbole that hasn't consulted a dictionary.
KM
--
(-:alohacyberian:-) At my website there are 3000 live cameras or
visit NASA, play games, read jokes, send greeting cards & connect
to CNN news, NBA, the White House, Academy Awards or learn all
about Hawaii, Israel and more: http://keith.martin.home.att.net/
In article <vgm3t0gsmqj22e@no-spam>,
"Baxter" <lbax01.spaminator@no-spam> wrote:
> --
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> "nobody" <nobody@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:nobody-C8249E.23071807072003@no-spam
> > In article <21689c13530349686530971e64f8f3df@no-spam>,
> > a gay blade <a@no-spam> wrote:
> >
> > > Rabid Mets fan, Bill Shatzer, cheered ...
> > >
> > > > Yes indeed. They have -truly- fixed things. They've turned a
> > > > $200 billion budget surplus into a $400 billion (and counting)
> > >
> > > keep going, keep going:
> > >
> > > how about turning the longest post-war boom ( that is, the Clinton
> > > Administration ) into the longest post-war DEPRESSION .
> > >
> > > THATS RIGHT, IT'S A DEPRESSION. You Republicans need to take
> > > responsibility. It's your Pres. It's your Senate. It's your
> > > House -- and all you losers do is 'blame the Democrats'.
> >
> >
> > Yep, it was slick Willie's dot com bubble that burst.
>
> On Bush's watch from Bush's pinprick.
Still, it slick Willie's dot com bubble.
"nobody" <nobody@no-spam> wrote in message news:nobody-
> > > > THATS RIGHT, IT'S A DEPRESSION. You Republicans need to take
> > > > responsibility. It's your Pres. It's your Senate. It's your
> > > > House -- and all you losers do is 'blame the Democrats'.
> > >
> > >
> > > Yep, it was slick Willie's dot com bubble that burst.
>
> Still, it slick Willie's dot com bubble.
You guys need to come up for air. Seriously.
The "dot com bubble" was created by the folks who developed Microsoft,
Netscape, Cisco, Yahoo, AOL and by Intel, Macintosh and all the dot coms.
Willie did not invent a dot com and, as a member of the technology industry,
I can tell you that the collapse was well underway and overdue before the
2000 election. It was gross overspending and the stock prices, stupid. Not
some executive figurehead.
America needs to stop blaming and crediting the Democrats and
Republicans--the two most ineffective, counterproductive and self-serving
organizations in America--for the hard work of Americans and for the
inevitable ebb and flow of the economy.
-gatt
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"nobody" <nobody@no-spam> wrote in message
news:nobody-41ABD3.20291409072003@no-spam
> In article <vgm3t0gsmqj22e@no-spam>,
> "Baxter" <lbax01.spaminator@no-spam> wrote:
>
> >
> > "nobody" <nobody@no-spam> wrote in message
> > news:nobody-C8249E.23071807072003@no-spam
> > > In article <21689c13530349686530971e64f8f3df@no-spam>,
> > > a gay blade <a@no-spam> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Rabid Mets fan, Bill Shatzer, cheered ...
> > > >
> > > > > Yes indeed. They have -truly- fixed things. They've turned a
> > > > > $200 billion budget surplus into a $400 billion (and counting)
> > > >
> > > > keep going, keep going:
> > > >
> > > > how about turning the longest post-war boom ( that is, the Clinton
> > > > Administration ) into the longest post-war DEPRESSION .
> > > >
> > > > THATS RIGHT, IT'S A DEPRESSION. You Republicans need to take
> > > > responsibility. It's your Pres. It's your Senate. It's your
> > > > House -- and all you losers do is 'blame the Democrats'.
> > >
> > >
> > > Yep, it was slick Willie's dot com bubble that burst.
> >
> > On Bush's watch from Bush's pinprick.
>
>
> Still, it slick Willie's dot com bubble.
Might have firmed up into something solid if Bush hadn't come along. Fact
is, Conventional Wisdom at the time didn't see any end to that bubble. Since
it's burst, nobody's (not you) actually been able to offer a reasonable
explanation of why - we know it's burst, but we don't know why or how to fix
it.
gatt wrote :
" The ' dot com bubble ' was
[ not caused by ] some executive figurehead . "
You're very wrong about this !
I vividly remember the Japanese criticizing Clinton in 1994
for having a Wall Street Cabinet ...
I knew right then that bad things were coming .
Greenspan might as well have donned a miniskirt and pom-poms ...
All he ever did was cheer on the New Economy ...
Throwning all the rules out the window .
Instead , Greenspan should've done everything in his power
to make the markets as predictable as possible ...
by dashing people's irrational expectations .
"Jeff Relf" <____Jeff-Relf@no-spam> wrote in message
> I vividly remember the Japanese criticizing Clinton in 1994
> for having a Wall Street Cabinet ...
Japan's economy tanked too.
> Instead , Greenspan should've done everything in his power
> to make the markets as predictable as possible ...
> by dashing people's irrational expectations .
People should be responsible for their own expectations without the
government (or the media) having to think for them.
-c
Baxter wrote :
" Conventional Wisdom at the time didn't
see any end to that bubble . "
I saw it coming .
If I wanted to ,
I think could even reference my posts to prove it .
I was screaming in disbelief
as earnings yields approached zero ... and even below .
The cure would've been to have the leaders ,
Clinton and Greenspan ,
stamp out the flames of irrational expectations .
Now we're stuck with markets that are
so volatile only gamblers would ever dream of investing in it .
"gatt" <gatt@no-spam> wrote in message
news:W27Pa.60046$JY1.56810@no-spam
>
> "Jeff Relf" <____Jeff-Relf@no-spam> wrote in message
>
> > I vividly remember the Japanese criticizing Clinton in 1994
> > for having a Wall Street Cabinet ...
>
> Japan's economy tanked too.
>
> > Instead , Greenspan should've done everything in his power
> > to make the markets as predictable as possible ...
> > by dashing people's irrational expectations .
>
> People should be responsible for their own expectations without the
> government (or the media) having to think for them.
>
> -c
>
>
And I Bet You Have 'Skid Marks' In Your Poopy Pants!!!
"gatt" <gatt@no-spam> wrote in message
news:W27Pa.60046$JY1.56810@no-spam
>
> "Jeff Relf" <____Jeff-Relf@no-spam> wrote in message
>
> > I vividly remember the Japanese criticizing Clinton in 1994
> > for having a Wall Street Cabinet ...
>
> Japan's economy tanked too.
>
> > Instead , Greenspan should've done everything in his power
> > to make the markets as predictable as possible ...
> > by dashing people's irrational expectations .
>
> People should be responsible for their own expectations without the
> government (or the media) having to think for them.
>
> -c
>
>
WEAR A TINFOIL HAT!!!!
One Of US...
One Of US...
One Of US...
One Of US...
One Of US...
One Of US...
One Of US...
One Of US...
One Of US...
One Of US...
One Of US...
One Of US...
One Of US...
One Of US...
One Of US...
One Of US...
One Of US...
One Of US...
One Of US...
One Of US...
One Of US...
One Of US...
One Of US...
One Of US...
One Of US...
One Of US...
One Of US...
One Of US...
One Of US...
One Of US...
One Of US...
One Of US...
One Of US...
One Of US...
One Of US...
One Of US...
One Of US...
One Of US...
One Of US...
One Of US...
One Of US...
One Of US...
One Of US...
One Of US...
One Of US...
One Of US...
One Of US...
One Of US...
One Of US...
One Of US...
One Of US...
One Of US...
One Of US...
One Of US...
One Of US...
One Of US...
One Of US...
One Of US...
One Of US...
One Of US...
One Of US...
One Of US...
One Of US...
One Of US...
One Of US...
One Of US...
One Of US...
One Of US...
One Of US...
One Of US...
One Of US...
One Of US...
One Of US...
One Of US...
One Of US...
One Of US...
One Of US...
One Of US...
One Of US...
One Of US...
One Of US...
One Of US...
One Of US...
BUY THE LIES!!!!
"gatt" <gatt@no-spam> wrote in message
news:h16Pa.59637$JY1.48814@no-spam
> "nobody" <nobody@no-spam> wrote in message news:nobody-
> > Still, it slick Willie's dot com bubble.
>
> You guys need to come up for air. Seriously.
>
> The "dot com bubble" was created by the folks who developed Microsoft,
> Netscape, Cisco, Yahoo, AOL and by Intel, Macintosh and all the dot coms.
> Willie did not invent a dot com and, as a member of the technology
industry,
> I can tell you that the collapse was well underway and overdue before the
> 2000 election. It was gross overspending and the stock prices, stupid. Not
> some executive figurehead.
>
> America needs to stop blaming and crediting the Democrats and
> Republicans--the two most ineffective, counterproductive and self-serving
> organizations in America--for the hard work of Americans and for the
> inevitable ebb and flow of the economy.
>
> -gatt
>
Very well said. Though Gore may be somewhat culpable for inventing the
Internet in the first place. ;-) KM
--
(-:alohacyberian:-) At my website there are 3000 live cameras or
visit NASA, play games, read jokes, send greeting cards & connect
to CNN news, NBA, the White House, Academy Awards or learn all
about Hawaii, Israel and more: http://keith.martin.home.att.net/
"gatt" <gatt@no-spam> wrote in message
news:W27Pa.60046$JY1.56810@no-spam
> "Jeff Relf" <____Jeff-Relf@no-spam> wrote in message
>
> > I vividly remember the Japanese criticizing Clinton in 1994
> > for having a Wall Street Cabinet ...
>
> Japan's economy tanked too.
>
> > Instead , Greenspan should've done everything in his power
> > to make the markets as predictable as possible ...
> > by dashing people's irrational expectations .
>
> People should be responsible for their own expectations without the
> government (or the media) having to think for them.
>
> -c
>
Very well said. Our nation is rapidly becoming a place where many
individuals are no longer held accountable for their decisions and actions
and they expect to be protected for their dalliances by the federal
government. KM
--
(-:alohacyberian:-) At my website there are 3000 live cameras or
visit NASA, play games, read jokes, send greeting cards & connect
to CNN news, NBA, the White House, Academy Awards or learn all
about Hawaii, Israel and more: http://keith.martin.home.att.net/
"Bob Tiernan" <zulu.pacifier.com@no-spam> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.4.53MAILDIR.0307100003430.414@no-spam
> Jeff Relf wrote:
>
> > I vividly remember the Japanese criticizing Clinton in
> > 1994 for having a Wall Street Cabinet ...
>
> I thought it was a cabinet of mostly lawyers. Remember
> when Clinton claimed (bragged) that he had a cabinet
> "that looked like America"? As pointed out by observers,
> it was true: white lawyer, black lawyer, Hispanic
> lawyer, female lawyer, Asian lawyer, lesbian lawyer,
> and so on.
>
> All lawyers.
>
> Bob t
>
I guess Clinton doesn't look like an American anymore since he was disbarred.
;-) KM
--
(-:alohacyberian:-) At my website there are 3000 live cameras or
visit NASA, play games, read jokes, send greeting cards & connect
to CNN news, NBA, the White House, Academy Awards or learn all
about Hawaii, Israel and more: http://keith.martin.home.att.net/
"Baxter" <lbax01.spaminator@no-spam> wrote in message
news:vgprfmckc9kg3e@no-spam
> "nobody" <nobody@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:nobody-41ABD3.20291409072003@no-spam
> > In article <vgm3t0gsmqj22e@no-spam>,
> > "Baxter" <lbax01.spaminator@no-spam> wrote:
> > > "nobody" <nobody@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > news:nobody-C8249E.23071807072003@no-spam
> > > > In article <21689c13530349686530971e64f8f3df@no-spam>,
> > > > a gay blade <a@no-spam> wrote:
> >
> > Still, it slick Willie's dot com bubble.
>
> Might have firmed up into something solid if Bush hadn't come along. Fact
> is, Conventional Wisdom at the time didn't see any end to that bubble.
>
To say that conventional wisdom didn't see any end to that bubble is absolute
rubbish. Only a person completely uneducated in the workings of equity
markets would such an idiotic conclusion. So, speak for yourself. KM
--
(-:alohacyberian:-) At my website there are 3000 live cameras or
visit NASA, play games, read jokes, send greeting cards & connect
to CNN news, NBA, the White House, Academy Awards or learn all
about Hawaii, Israel and more: http://keith.martin.home.att.net/
"Baxter" <lbax01.spaminator@no-spam> wrote in message
...
> > Still, it slick Willie's dot com bubble.
No more than it was Slick Willie's snowstorm in February or his heat
wave in August while he was president. He didn't create any of those
things, nor did Bush create the dot com slide (which began before the
election).
The government cannot control the economy though it can damage it.
Politicians like to take credit for good things and blame the
opposition for the bad but usually they had little or nothing to do
with either.
> Might have firmed up into something solid if Bush hadn't come along.
Utter nonsense. The bubble was leaking badly before the election,
much less before Bush took office.
> Fact
> is, Conventional Wisdom at the time didn't see any end to that bubble.
And conventional wisdom was nothing more than herd mentality (which is
quite common in the stock market). Conventional wisdom was wrong, as
if often is. The smart investors were out of the dot coms before the
bubble burst. I am a rather agressive investor but I never got into
the dot coms.
>Since
> it's burst, nobody's (not you) actually been able to offer a reasonable
> explanation of why - we know it's burst, but we don't know why or how to fix
> it.
Poppycock. The bubble burst because it was overinflated. Greenspan
among others pointed that out well before the crash. Most of the dot
com companies were not profitable and had little prospect of making a
profit. Bezo, and his stock still went up! Fortunately for his
company (and its investors) some Wall Street folks talked sense into
him.
A lot of the dot com stocks were basically Ponzi schemes. People were
buying the stock based on the expectation that market psychology would
continue. The market in 1999 reflected herd mentality at its worst,
people just following trends. They weren't looking at fundamentals
like the corporate balance sheets. As many of us predicted, they got
burned. The only question was when the bubble would burst, not if it
would happen.
In article <3f0d8608$1@no-spam>, "WinGuru" <anonymous> wrote:
> "nobody" <nobody@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:nobody-B112BF.20494906072003@no-spam
> > In article <3f07b7e4$1@no-spam>, "WinGuru" <anonymous> wrote:
> >
> > > "nobody" <nobody@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > news:nobody-9E9A87.22190505072003@no-spam
> > > > In article <vgdu2q75rusfd7@no-spam>,
> > > > "Baxter" <lbax01.spaminator@no-spam> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > --
> > > >
> > >
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
> > > >
> > >
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > "alohacyberian" <alohacyberian@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > > > news:TPsNa.36741$0v4.2689644@no-spam
> > > > > > "Baxter" <lbax01.spaminator@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > > > > news:vgb7q0eph9tba0@no-spam
> > > > > > > "alohacyberian" <alohacyberian@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > > > > >
> news:G3cNa.35334$3o3.2582783@no-spam
> > > > > > > > "nobody" <nobody@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > > > > > > news:nobody-A9188E.21170003072003@no-spam
> > > > > > > > > In article <3f044e8a$1@no-spam>, "WinGuru" <anonymous>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > "Bob Tiernan" <zulu.pacifier.com@no-spam>
> wrote in
> > > > > > message
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > news:Pine.GSO.4.53MAILDIR.0307030005350.13611@no-spam
> > > > > > > > > > > Bill Shatzer wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > BT ... The SCOTUS clearly ruled incorrectly....
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Ah, yet another proof by assertion.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > And meaningless at that. What happened is history and can't
> be
> > > > > undone.
> > > > > > > > Pragmatic people will carry on and let the idealists live and
> > > squawk
> > > > > in
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > past to no avail. KM
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The reason people continue to squawk is that they don't want the
> > > same
> > > > > thing
> > > > > > > to happen in the next election. Once the *system* has been
> fixed,
> > > the
> > > > > > > squawking will go away.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The system is the Electoral College. Work to change it or shut
> up.
> > > KM
> > > > >
> > > > > No, the *system* I'm talking about is: "counting the votes". That
> was
> > > not
> > > > > done thanks to Bush.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > But the 2002 elections showed that the "people" were pretty satisfied
> > > > with the 2000 elections, otherwise they'd have voted many of President
> > > > Bush's party out of Congress. Instead they increased President Bush's
> > > > party's representation in Congress. Doesn't sound like too many were
> > > > unhappy with the 2000 elections.
> > >
> > > It showed that they could be lied to and their fear taken advantage of.
> >
> >
> > The DemocRATs showed that over all the year they controlled Congress.
>
> Really? When was that?
What part of "when they [DemocRATs] controlled Congress" didn't you
understand? Hint, think LBJ.
In article <3f0d8766@no-spam>, "WinGuru" <anonymous> wrote:
> "nobody" <nobody@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:nobody-41ABD3.20291409072003@no-spam
> > In article <vgm3t0gsmqj22e@no-spam>,
> > "Baxter" <lbax01.spaminator@no-spam> wrote:
> >
> > > --
> >
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
> >
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > >
> > > "nobody" <nobody@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > news:nobody-C8249E.23071807072003@no-spam
> > > > In article <21689c13530349686530971e64f8f3df@no-spam>,
> > > > a gay blade <a@no-spam> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Rabid Mets fan, Bill Shatzer, cheered ...
> > > > >
> > > > > > Yes indeed. They have -truly- fixed things. They've turned a
> > > > > > $200 billion budget surplus into a $400 billion (and counting)
> > > > >
> > > > > keep going, keep going:
> > > > >
> > > > > how about turning the longest post-war boom ( that is, the Clinton
> > > > > Administration ) into the longest post-war DEPRESSION .
> > > > >
> > > > > THATS RIGHT, IT'S A DEPRESSION. You Republicans need to take
> > > > > responsibility. It's your Pres. It's your Senate. It's your
> > > > > House -- and all you losers do is 'blame the Democrats'.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Yep, it was slick Willie's dot com bubble that burst.
> > >
> > > On Bush's watch from Bush's pinprick.
> >
> >
> > Still, it slick Willie's dot com bubble.
>
> Yes, it was - glad you finally admit that the soaring and productive economy
> of the 90's was due to President Clinton and that Bush's policies are what
> caused the collapse.
Care to detail any changes that President Bush made to Clinton economic
policies that caused the current economic downturn?
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"alohacyberian" <alohacyberian@no-spam> wrote in message
news:BGaPa.47232$3o3.3207287@no-spam
> "Baxter" <lbax01.spaminator@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:vgprfmckc9kg3e@no-spam
> > "nobody" <nobody@no-spam> wrote in message
> > news:nobody-41ABD3.20291409072003@no-spam
> > > In article <vgm3t0gsmqj22e@no-spam>,
> > > "Baxter" <lbax01.spaminator@no-spam> wrote:
> > > > "nobody" <nobody@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > > news:nobody-C8249E.23071807072003@no-spam
> > > > > In article <21689c13530349686530971e64f8f3df@no-spam>,
> > > > > a gay blade <a@no-spam> wrote:
> > >
> > > Still, it slick Willie's dot com bubble.
> >
> > Might have firmed up into something solid if Bush hadn't come along.
Fact
> > is, Conventional Wisdom at the time didn't see any end to that bubble.
> >
> To say that conventional wisdom didn't see any end to that bubble is
absolute
> rubbish. Only a person completely uneducated in the workings of equity
> markets would such an idiotic conclusion. So, speak for yourself. KM
What are you, about 10 years old? I'm not one who claimed that the bubble
wouldn't burst, but the CW you heard from Wall Street and various Economists
said exactly that - Unlimited Growth.
"Baxter" <lbax01.spaminator@no-spam> wrote in message news:<vgrbc6bc79qd79@no-spam>...
> > Utter nonsense. The bubble was leaking badly before the election,
> > much less before Bush took office.
> Really? Do provide a link that demonstrates that.
I've done it before but you apparently weren't paying attention. Just
go to any site which tracks stock prices and look at the charts of a
few companies over the last 4-5 years. For example you can go to
money.com where you will find:
IBM: Stock price started a steep decline about Jan of 2001, before
Bush was inagurated.
Amazon.com (Bezos' company): Decline started about Jan of 2000!
Maxim Integrated Products (an IC company): Decline started about July
2000.
> I hear that canard over
> and over, but 90% of the drop in the Stock Market occurred on Bush's watch -
> not Clinton. Clinton left office with all economic indicators at much
> higher levels than when he started. With Bush the trend has been down,
> down, down - except for unemployment; that's been up, up, up.
Maybe you should learn a bit about economics. Any measures to change
the economy tend to have a delayed effect. You don't just turn
something like the US economy on a dime. It's more like a huge ship
with a very small rudder. What is done today will probably take
effect in a year or so. Add to that the fact that government is not
the real controller of our economy and you get a rather different
picture. You have refused to address that, as you have refused to
address the fact that the dot com bubble was a known problem well
before the last presidential election. That was the prime thing
Greenspan was talking about when he decried "irrational exuberance."
Remember, Greenspans words were uttered well before the election.
Your statement that nobody knows why the bubble burst is nonsense of
the first order.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Hal Lillywhite" <hlillywh@no-spam> wrote in message
news:ccf77bfa.0307101300.cf80a8e@no-spam
> "Baxter" <lbax01.spaminator@no-spam> wrote in message
news:<vgrbc6bc79qd79@no-spam>...
>
> > > Utter nonsense. The bubble was leaking badly before the election,
> > > much less before Bush took office.
>
> > Really? Do provide a link that demonstrates that.
>
> I've done it before but you apparently weren't paying attention.
No you haven't. Not even once have you provided a link.
> Just
> go to any site which tracks stock prices and look at the charts of a
> few companies over the last 4-5 years. For example you can go to
> money.com where you will find:
Go to http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=^DJI&d=t You'll find it pretty flat
until about Feb '01.
>
> IBM: Stock price started a steep decline about Jan of 2001, before
> Bush was inagurated.
>
> Amazon.com (Bezos' company): Decline started about Jan of 2000!
>
> Maxim Integrated Products (an IC company): Decline started about July
> 2000.
>
> > I hear that canard over
> > and over, but 90% of the drop in the Stock Market occurred on Bush's
watch -
> > not Clinton. Clinton left office with all economic indicators at much
> > higher levels than when he started. With Bush the trend has been down,
> > down, down - except for unemployment; that's been up, up, up.
>
> Maybe you should learn a bit about economics. Any measures to change
> the economy tend to have a delayed effect. You don't just turn
> something like the US economy on a dime. It's more like a huge ship
> with a very small rudder. What is done today will probably take
> effect in a year or so. Add to that the fact that government is not
> the real controller of our economy and you get a rather different
> picture. You have refused to address that, as you have refused to
> address the fact that the dot com bubble was a known problem well
> before the last presidential election. That was the prime thing
> Greenspan was talking about when he decried "irrational exuberance."
> Remember, Greenspans words were uttered well before the election.
> Your statement that nobody knows why the bubble burst is nonsense of
> the first order.
90% of the drop is on Bush's watch, AND it's stayed down. It's going to
stay down as long as we're spending nearly $5 billion a MONTH for Bush's
imperialist wet dreams.
"gatt" <gatt@no-spam> wrote in message
news:D%iPa.65400$JY1.39733@no-spam
> "Rev. 11D Meow!" <NanoMargay@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:qc7Pa.71193$n%
> > > People should be responsible for their own expectations without the
> > > government (or the media) having to think for them.
>
> > WEAR A TINFOIL HAT!!!!
>
> Wow. You replied to the same post three times without one intelligent,
> mature point.
>
> I guess you DO need the government to think for you.
> -c
>
The trouble is, he only agrees with the government when it parrots the same
propaganda he gets from political illiterates. KM
--
(-:alohacyberian:-) At my website there are 3000 live cameras or
visit NASA, play games, read jokes, send greeting cards & connect
to CNN news, NBA, the White House, Academy Awards or learn all
about Hawaii, Israel and more: http://keith.martin.home.att.net/
"WinGuru" <anonymous> wrote in message news:3f0d8766@no-spam
> "nobody" <nobody@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:nobody-41ABD3.20291409072003@no-spam
> > In article <vgm3t0gsmqj22e@no-spam>,
> > "Baxter" <lbax01.spaminator@no-spam> wrote:
> > > "nobody" <nobody@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > news:nobody-C8249E.23071807072003@no-spam
> > > > In article <21689c13530349686530971e64f8f3df@no-spam>,
> > Still, its slick Willie's dot com bubble.
>
> Yes, it was - glad you finally admit that the soaring and productive
economy
> of the 90's was due to President Clinton and that Bush's policies are what
> caused the collapse. Yes the economy did start to slow it's rate of
GROWTH
> after Bush (during the campaign) started to denigrate the economy every
> chance he could. And yes, the economy did start to slow it's rate of
GROWTH
> after the repeated interest rate hikes by the Feds where they INTENTIONALLY
> were taking actions to force a slowing of the growth rate. The COLLAPSE,
> however, happened during the phony, manufactured, and Bush supported
"energy
> crisis" which turns out to have been nothing more than a ploy for Bush's
> friends (and Bush for that matter) to get rich by stealing 10's of billions
> from west coast economies.
>
Thanks for the comedy skit. Do you think it's all part of a vast right wing
conspiracy on a grassy knoll? KM
--
(-:alohacyberian:-) At my website there are 3000 live cameras or
visit NASA, play games, read jokes, send greeting cards & connect
to CNN news, NBA, the White House, Academy Awards or learn all
about Hawaii, Israel and more: http://keith.martin.home.att.net/
"Hal Lillywhite" <hlillywh@no-spam> wrote in message
news:ccf77bfa.0307100846.3404132c@no-spam
> "Baxter" <lbax01.spaminator@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > Still, it slick Willie's dot com bubble.
>
> No more than it was Slick Willie's snowstorm in February or his heat
> wave in August while he was president. He didn't create any of those
> things, nor did Bush create the dot com slide (which began before the
> election).
>
> The government cannot control the economy though it can damage it.
> Politicians like to take credit for good things and blame the
> opposition for the bad but usually they had little or nothing to do
> with either.
>
> > Might have firmed up into something solid if Bush hadn't come along.
>
> Utter nonsense. The bubble was leaking badly before the election,
> much less before Bush took office.
>
> > Fact
> > is, Conventional Wisdom at the time didn't see any end to that bubble.
>
> And conventional wisdom was nothing more than herd mentality (which is
> quite common in the stock market). Conventional wisdom was wrong, as
> if often is. The smart investors were out of the dot coms before the
> bubble burst. I am a rather agressive investor but I never got into
> the dot coms.
>
> >Since
> > it's burst, nobody's (not you) actually been able to offer a reasonable
> > explanation of why - we know it's burst, but we don't know why or how to
fix
> > it.
>
> Poppycock. The bubble burst because it was overinflated. Greenspan
> among others pointed that out well before the crash. Most of the dot
> com companies were not profitable and had little prospect of making a
> profit. Bezo, and his stock still went up! Fortunately for his
> company (and its investors) some Wall Street folks talked sense into
> him.
>
> A lot of the dot com stocks were basically Ponzi schemes. People were
> buying the stock based on the expectation that market psychology would
> continue. The market in 1999 reflected herd mentality at its worst,
> people just following trends. They weren't looking at fundamentals
> like the corporate balance sheets. As many of us predicted, they got
> burned. The only question was when the bubble would burst, not if it
> would happen.
>
My hat is off to you for a balanced, well-thought out response which sticks
to simple economic facts rather than partisan nonesense. Kudos! I agree
with everything but the use of the word "Ponzi". A lot of these dot com
movers and shakers are techie nerds who have little grasp of capital markets
and no understanding of equity markets. And many of their financial advisers
are young, inexperienced, ex-college buddies who were mediocre students in
academe. Many of the buyers of their equity securities fall into the same
category and none of that has anything to do with politics or the Fed. KM
--
(-:alohacyberian:-) At my website there are 3000 live cameras or
visit NASA, play games, read jokes, send greeting cards & connect
to CNN news, NBA, the White House, Academy Awards or learn all
about Hawaii, Israel and more: http://keith.martin.home.att.net/
"Baxter" <lbax01.spaminator@no-spam> wrote in message
news:vgrbc6bc79qd79@no-spam
> "Hal Lillywhite" <hlillywh@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:ccf77bfa.0307100846.3404132c@no-spam
> > "Baxter" <lbax01.spaminator@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > Might have firmed up into something solid if Bush hadn't come along.
> >
> > Utter nonsense. The bubble was leaking badly before the election,
> > much less before Bush took office.
>
> Really? Do provide a link that demonstrates that. I hear that canard over
> and over, but 90% of the drop in the Stock Market occurred on Bush's
watch -
> not Clinton. Clinton left office with all economic indicators at much
> higher levels than when he started. With Bush the trend has been down,
> down, down - except for unemployment; that's been up, up, up.
>
You can't judge "the market" by looking at tech stocks only or at overall
indexes while ignoring individual stocks. The need to oversimplify for
propaganda purposes only serves to confuse you further and make you a more
notable laughingstock. KM
--
(-:alohacyberian:-) At my website there are 3000 live cameras or
visit NASA, play games, read jokes, send greeting cards & connect
to CNN news, NBA, the White House, Academy Awards or learn all
about Hawaii, Israel and more: http://keith.martin.home.att.net/
"Hal Lillywhite" <hlillywh@no-spam> wrote in message
news:ccf77bfa.0307101300.cf80a8e@no-spam
> "Baxter" <lbax01.spaminator@no-spam> wrote in message
news:<vgrbc6bc79qd79@no-spam>...
> > > Utter nonsense. The bubble was leaking badly before the election,
> > > much less before Bush took office.
>
> > Really? Do provide a link that demonstrates that.
>
> I've done it before but you apparently weren't paying attention. Just
> go to any site which tracks stock prices and look at the charts of a
> few companies over the last 4-5 years. For example you can go to
> money.com where you will find:
>
> IBM: Stock price started a steep decline about Jan of 2001, before
> Bush was inagurated.
>
> Amazon.com (Bezos' company): Decline started about Jan of 2000!
>
> Maxim Integrated Products (an IC company): Decline started about July
> 2000.
>
> Maybe you should learn a bit about economics. Any measures to change
> the economy tend to have a delayed effect. You don't just turn
> something like the US economy on a dime. It's more like a huge ship
> with a very small rudder. What is done today will probably take
> effect in a year or so. Add to that the fact that government is not
> the real controller of our economy and you get a rather different
> picture. You have refused to address that, as you have refused to
> address the fact that the dot com bubble was a known problem well
> before the last presidential election. That was the prime thing
> Greenspan was talking about when he decried "irrational exuberance."
> Remember, Greenspans words were uttered well before the election.
> Your statement that nobody knows why the bubble burst is nonsense of
> the first order.
>
I think the use of accurate data and irrefutable facts falls on deaf ears
with propagandists who would rather rewrite history than consider economic
reality. I'm glad they don't manage my investments! A combination of
economic and political illiteracy dooms people to be misinformed, but when
those people are confirmed and rabid pessimists, they're going to inaccuately
assess everything around them. KM
--
(-:alohacyberian:-) At my website there are 3000 live cameras or
visit NASA, play games, read jokes, send greeting cards & connect
to CNN news, NBA, the White House, Academy Awards or learn all
about Hawaii, Israel and more: http://keith.martin.home.att.net/
"nobody" <nobody@no-spam> wrote in message
news:nobody-C117C2.14043310072003@no-spam
> In article <vgprfmckc9kg3e@no-spam>,
> "Baxter" <lbax01.spaminator@no-spam> wrote:
> > "nobody" <nobody@no-spam> wrote in message
> > news:nobody-41ABD3.20291409072003@no-spam
> > > In article <vgm3t0gsmqj22e@no-spam>,
> > > "Baxter" <lbax01.spaminator@no-spam> wrote:
> > > > "nobody" <nobody@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > > news:nobody-C8249E.23071807072003@no-spam
> > > > > In article <21689c13530349686530971e64f8f3df@no-spam>,
> > > > > a gay blade <a@no-spam> wrote:
> > > Still, it slick Willie's dot com bubble.
> >
> > Might have firmed up into something solid if Bush hadn't come along.
>
> Care to detail any economic changes President Bush made to Clinton
> economic policies that would account for the economy not having firmed
> up into somethin solid lately?
>
If he answers that question with irrefutable facts - I'll buy you lunch as
well as dinner and drinks! :-) KM
--
(-:alohacyberian:-) At my website there are 3000 live cameras or
visit NASA, play games, read jokes, send greeting cards & connect
to CNN news, NBA, the White House, Academy Awards or learn all
about Hawaii, Israel and more: http://keith.martin.home.att.net/
"Hal Lillywhite" <hlillywh@no-spam> wrote in message
> A lot of the dot com stocks were basically Ponzi schemes. People were
> buying the stock based on the expectation that market psychology would
> continue. The market in 1999 reflected herd mentality at its worst,
> people just following trends.
Indeed. That's what I've been trying to say; it wasn't the Dems or Repubs,
it was the day traders and inexperienced investors.
One of my friends' mom was a day trader. One day she got all excited because
while she left her machine online and went out of the room, her cat ran
across the keyboard and somehow she ended up buying stock. By the time she
managed to figure out how to undo her purchase the value had gone up a bit
so she just kept whatever the stock was and made a little money off of it.
Wasn't smart investing or day trading, it was her cat. Meanwhile, I got
stock options where I worked but by the time they got through the process to
get them to me, my options would have cost $3/share more than the actual
value of the stock. That was in 1999...before the election.
-c
"Baxter" <lbax01.spaminator@no-spam> wrote in message
> > Utter nonsense. The bubble was leaking badly before the election,
> > much less before Bush took office.
>
> Really? Do provide a link that demonstrates that. I
HAAAHAA. HAHAHA. HAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAA!
YOU?! Telling somebody ELSE to prove something?
Where'd you find that cheap gas, Baxter? Where'd you get those degrees you
claimed to have?
HAHAHAAAAAA!
"Baxter" <lbax01.spaminator@no-spam> wrote in message
news:vgrajm1bduha89@no-spam
> "alohacyberian" <alohacyberian@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:BGaPa.47232$3o3.3207287@no-spam
> > "Baxter" <lbax01.spaminator@no-spam> wrote in message
> > news:vgprfmckc9kg3e@no-spam
> > > "nobody" <nobody@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > news:nobody-41ABD3.20291409072003@no-spam
> > > > In article <vgm3t0gsmqj22e@no-spam>,
> > > > "Baxter" <lbax01.spaminator@no-spam> wrote:
> > > > > "nobody" <nobody@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > > > news:nobody-C8249E.23071807072003@no-spam
> > > > > > In article <21689c13530349686530971e64f8f3df@no-spam>,
> > > > > > a gay blade <a@no-spam> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Still, it slick Willie's dot com bubble.
> > >
> > > Might have firmed up into something solid if Bush hadn't come along.
> Fact
> > > is, Conventional Wisdom at the time didn't see any end to that bubble.
> > >
> > To say that conventional wisdom didn't see any end to that bubble is
> absolute
> > rubbish. Only a person completely uneducated in the workings of equity
> > markets would such an idiotic conclusion. So, speak for yourself. KM
>
> What are you, about 10 years old? I'm not one who claimed that the bubble
> wouldn't burst, but the CW you heard from Wall Street and various
Economists
> said exactly that - Unlimited Growth.
>
Another classic example of the media being an unreliable source of
information and predictions. Thanks for confirming what I've been saying lo
these many years. KM
--
(-:alohacyberian:-) At my website there are 3000 live cameras or
visit NASA, play games, read jokes, send greeting cards & connect
to CNN news, NBA, the White House, Academy Awards or learn all
about Hawaii, Israel and more: http://keith.martin.home.att.net/
"alohacyberian" <alohacyberian@no-spam> wrote in message
news:MUlPa.48757$0v4.3305483@no-spam
> "Hal Lillywhite" <hlillywh@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:ccf77bfa.0307101300.cf80a8e@no-spam
> > "Baxter" <lbax01.spaminator@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:<vgrbc6bc79qd79@no-spam>...
> >
> I think the use of accurate data and irrefutable facts falls on deaf ears
> with propagandists who would rather rewrite history than consider economic
> reality. I'm glad they don't manage my investments! A combination of
> economic and political illiteracy dooms people to be misinformed, but when
> those people are confirmed and rabid pessimists, they're going to
inaccuately
> assess everything around them. KM
> --
And if you add a partisan political agenda to their assessments, you're bound
to come up with a basketful of bromides, platitiudes, slogans and dire
warnings to go along with their general wailing and whining about the sky
falling. KM
--
(-:alohacyberian:-) At my website there are 3000 live cameras or
visit NASA, play games, read jokes, send greeting cards & connect
to CNN news, NBA, the White House, Academy Awards or learn all
about Hawaii, Israel and more: http://keith.martin.home.att.net/
"gatt" <gatt@no-spam> wrote in message
news:pjmPa.20508$aD6.12265@no-spam
>
> "Hal Lillywhite" <hlillywh@no-spam> wrote in message
>
> > A lot of the dot com stocks were basically Ponzi schemes. People were
> > buying the stock based on the expectation that market psychology would
> > continue. The market in 1999 reflected herd mentality at its worst,
> > people just following trends.
>
> Indeed. That's what I've been trying to say; it wasn't the Dems or
Repubs,
> it was the day traders and inexperienced investors.
>
> One of my friends' mom was a day trader. One day she got all excited
because
> while she left her machine online and went out of the room, her cat ran
> across the keyboard and somehow she ended up buying stock. By the time she
> managed to figure out how to undo her purchase the value had gone up a bit
> so she just kept whatever the stock was and made a little money off of it.
>
> Wasn't smart investing or day trading, it was her cat. Meanwhile, I got
> stock options where I worked but by the time they got through the process
to
> get them to me, my options would have cost $3/share more than the actual
> value of the stock. That was in 1999...before the election.
>
> -c
look, in a hyper-rising market, one can throw a dartboard and do quite well.
that's basic. imo, one of the biggest signs of unsustainable fervor was
some of the silly derivatives people were investing in.
i'm glad for the crash. it took a lot of froth out of the market. of
course, the fact that i disinvested most of my common stock prior to same,
and was also hedged to an extent with bonds and gold, makes me especially
thankful! :)
whit
>
>
>
In article
<QUlPa.48761$0v4.3306186@no-spam>,
"alohacyberian" <alohacyberian@no-spam> wrote:
> "nobody" <nobody@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:nobody-C117C2.14043310072003@no-spam
> > In article <vgprfmckc9kg3e@no-spam>,
> > "Baxter" <lbax01.spaminator@no-spam> wrote:
> > > "nobody" <nobody@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > news:nobody-41ABD3.20291409072003@no-spam
> > > > In article <vgm3t0gsmqj22e@no-spam>,
> > > > "Baxter" <lbax01.spaminator@no-spam> wrote:
> > > > > "nobody" <nobody@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > > > news:nobody-C8249E.23071807072003@no-spam
> > > > > > In article <21689c13530349686530971e64f8f3df@no-spam>,
> > > > > > a gay blade <a@no-spam> wrote:
> > > > Still, it slick Willie's dot com bubble.
> > >
> > > Might have firmed up into something solid if Bush hadn't come along.
> >
> > Care to detail any economic changes President Bush made to Clinton
> > economic policies that would account for the economy not having firmed
> > up into somethin solid lately?
> >
> If he answers that question with irrefutable facts - I'll buy you lunch as
> well as dinner and drinks!
Bastard, you always take the safe bets. :-)
In article
<OUlPa.48759$0v4.3306099@no-spam>,
"alohacyberian" <alohacyberian@no-spam> wrote:
> "nobody" <nobody@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:nobody-229849.14025910072003@no-spam
> > In article <3f0d8766@no-spam>, "WinGuru" <anonymous> wrote:
> > > "nobody" <nobody@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > news:nobody-41ABD3.20291409072003@no-spam
> > > > In article <vgm3t0gsmqj22e@no-spam>,
> > > > "Baxter" <lbax01.spaminator@no-spam> wrote:
> > > > > "nobody" <nobody@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > > > news:nobody-C8249E.23071807072003@no-spam
> > > > > > In article <21689c13530349686530971e64f8f3df@no-spam>,
> > > > > > a gay blade <a@no-spam> wrote:
> > > > Still, it slick Willie's dot com bubble.
> > >
> > > Yes, it was - glad you finally admit that the soaring and productive
> economy
> > > of the 90's was due to President Clinton and that Bush's policies are
> what
> > > caused the collapse.
> >
> > Care to detail any changes that President Bush made to Clinton economic
> > policies that caused the current economic downturn?
> >
> I think that's an unfair request, though it's easy to tailor propaganda to
> fit any given fantasy.
Well now you've seen two feeble attempts. The fools Mitchum and Clave
both cited events that occured after the economic downturn as being the
cause of the economic downturn. It's hard to get stupider than that,
not that I doubt some others will try.
On 7/10/03 3:37 PM, in article
IUlPa.48754$0v4.3303856@no-spam "alohacyberian"
<alohacyberian@no-spam> wrote:
> "WinGuru" <anonymous> wrote in message news:3f0d8766@no-spam
>> "nobody" <nobody@no-spam> wrote in message
>> news:nobody-41ABD3.20291409072003@no-spam
>>> In article <vgm3t0gsmqj22e@no-spam>,
>>> "Baxter" <lbax01.spaminator@no-spam> wrote:
>>>> "nobody" <nobody@no-spam> wrote in message
>>>> news:nobody-C8249E.23071807072003@no-spam
>>>>> In article <21689c13530349686530971e64f8f3df@no-spam>,
>>> Still, its slick Willie's dot com bubble.
>>
>> Yes, it was - glad you finally admit that the soaring and productive
> economy
>> of the 90's was due to President Clinton and that Bush's policies are what
>> caused the collapse. Yes the economy did start to slow it's rate of
> GROWTH
>> after Bush (during the campaign) started to denigrate the economy every
>> chance he could. And yes, the economy did start to slow it's rate of
> GROWTH
>> after the repeated interest rate hikes by the Feds where they INTENTIONALLY
>> were taking actions to force a slowing of the growth rate. The COLLAPSE,
>> however, happened during the phony, manufactured, and Bush supported
> "energy
>> crisis" which turns out to have been nothing more than a ploy for Bush's
>> friends (and Bush for that matter) to get rich by stealing 10's of billions
>> from west coast economies.
>>
>
> Thanks for the comedy skit. Do you think it's all part of a vast right wing
> conspiracy on a grassy knoll? KM
If there was a conspiracy it was a left wing one that killed Kennedy:
Commies or unions.
On 7/10/03 3:37 PM, in article
MUlPa.48758$0v4.3306138@no-spam "alohacyberian"
<alohacyberian@no-spam> wrote:
> "Baxter" <lbax01.spaminator@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:vgrlsf649umb58@no-spam
>> "Hal Lillywhite" <hlillywh@no-spam> wrote in message
>> news:ccf77bfa.0307101300.cf80a8e@no-spam
>>> "Baxter" <lbax01.spaminator@no-spam> wrote in message
>> news:<vgrbc6bc79qd79@no-spam>...
>>> Maybe you should learn a bit about economics. Any measures to change
>>> the economy tend to have a delayed effect. You don't just turn
>>> something like the US economy on a dime. It's more like a huge ship
>>> with a very small rudder. What is done today will probably take
>>> effect in a year or so. Add to that the fact that government is not
>>> the real controller of our economy and you get a rather different
>>> picture. You have refused to address that, as you have refused to
>>> address the fact that the dot com bubble was a known problem well
>>> before the last presidential election. That was the prime thing
>>> Greenspan was talking about when he decried "irrational exuberance."
>>> Remember, Greenspans words were uttered well before the election.
>>> Your statement that nobody knows why the bubble burst is nonsense of
>>> the first order.
>>
>> 90% of the drop is on Bush's watch, AND it's stayed down. It's going to
>> stay down as long as we're spending nearly $5 billion a MONTH for Bush's
>> imperialist wet dreams.
>>
>
> Obviously you have no grasp of capital markets, but, probably are aware that
> what you're saying is exactly a reprise of what was being predicted in the
> early years of the Reagan adminstration. The public doesn't share your
> doom-and-gloom prognostications. Neither does the electorate. KM
It's like Clinton is driving a bus off a cliff. As is starts to go over he
says, "Here, you drive."
"Baxter" <lbax01.spaminator@no-spam> wrote in message news:<vgrlsf649umb58@no-spam>...
> > > > Utter nonsense. The bubble was leaking badly before the election,
> > > > much less before Bush took office.
> > > Really? Do provide a link that demonstrates that.
> > I've done it before but you apparently weren't paying attention.
> No you haven't. Not even once have you provided a link.
Before you call me a liar again you best do a search. No, I'm not
going to do it for you but will point out that in a previous cycle of
this discussion I referenced the same link (money.com) with the same
suggestion to plug in a few tech companies and look at the time their
stock started down. Now go do your homework.
> > Just
> > go to any site which tracks stock prices and look at the charts of a
> > few companies over the last 4-5 years. For example you can go to
> > money.com where you will find:
> Go to http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=^DJI&d=t You'll find it pretty flat...
Which is the *Dow-Jones* average! We were talking about the dot com
bubble. Can you guess how many dot coms were included in the 30
stocks that make up the Dow-Jones? Sheesh!
...
> > Maybe you should learn a bit about economics. Any measures to change
> > the economy tend to have a delayed effect. You don't just turn
> > something like the US economy on a dime. It's more like a huge ship
> > with a very small rudder. What is done today will probably take
> > effect in a year or so. Add to that the fact that government is not
> > the real controller of our economy and you get a rather different
> > picture. You have refused to address that, as you have refused to
> > address the fact that the dot com bubble was a known problem well
> > before the last presidential election. That was the prime thing
> > Greenspan was talking about when he decried "irrational exuberance."
> > Remember, Greenspans words were uttered well before the election.
> > Your statement that nobody knows why the bubble burst is nonsense of
> > the first order.
> 90% of the drop is on Bush's watch, AND it's stayed down. It's going to
> stay down as long as we're spending nearly $5 billion a MONTH for Bush's
> imperialist wet dreams.
Now please address the fact that government cannot control the
economy. And please apologize for your accusations and weasling.
*You* claimed the dot com bubble didn't burst till after Bush took
office. When confronted with evidence to the contrary you change the
subject to the Dow-Jones. And you refuse to even discuss the fact
that the dot coms were mostly junk stocks to begin with, not
profitable and not likely to make a profit. We're better off without
most of those companies. Nor have you recognized the error of your
idiotic claim that nobody knows why the dot com bubble burst.
So what if 90% of the dot com decline happend when Bush was president?
The forces which caused it were in place well before the election.
No, Clinton didn't cause it either, it was caused by slipshod business
practices and "investors" who would have made sheep look like
independent thinkers.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Hal Lillywhite" <hlillywh@no-spam> wrote in message
news:ccf77bfa.0307101837.1e95bada@no-spam
>
> So what if 90% of the dot com decline happend when Bush was president?
I rest my case.
alohacyberian wrote :
" It was never the place of the Fed Chairman
to regulate or concern himself with equities markets . "
Because why ?
Do you claim that the economy trots along fine
when Wall Street is dead on the floor ?
alohacyberian wrote :
" ... individuals are no longer held accountable ... "
Yea , especially individuals like Clinton and Greenspan ...
Who write checks that can't be cashed .
Bad loans ... bad stocks ... bankruptcies ... Lost pensions .
Bob Tiernan wrote :
" I thought it was a cabinet of mostly lawyers . "
Clinton's treasury secretary , the guy to signs the greenbacks ,
Robert Rubin , was a Wall Street insider .
Derivatives are basically contracts that
parcel out income and assets ... This involves lawyers .
While the left wing represents the city people ,
the right wing represents the country folk ... e.g. Oil .
"Each Hero Sues Ookie" <EachHeroSuesOokie@no-spam> wrote in message
news:BB336FA8.1113%EachHeroSuesOokie@no-spam
> On 7/10/03 3:37 PM, in article
> IUlPa.48754$0v4.3303856@no-spam "alohacyberian"
> <alohacyberian@no-spam> wrote:
> > "WinGuru" <anonymous> wrote in message news:3f0d8766@no-spam
> >> "nobody" <nobody@no-spam> wrote in message
> >> news:nobody-41ABD3.20291409072003@no-spam
> >>> In article <vgm3t0gsmqj22e@no-spam>,
> >>> "Baxter" <lbax01.spaminator@no-spam> wrote:
> >>>> "nobody" <nobody@no-spam> wrote in message
> >>>> news:nobody-C8249E.23071807072003@no-spam
> >>>>> In article <21689c13530349686530971e64f8f3df@no-spam>,
> > Thanks for the comedy skit. Do you think it's all part of a vast right
wing
> > conspiracy on a grassy knoll? KM
>
> If there was a conspiracy it was a left wing one that killed Kennedy:
> Commies or unions.
>
Or Lyndon Johnson. ;-) KM
--
(-:alohacyberian:-) At my website there are 3000 live cameras or
visit NASA, play games, read jokes, send greeting cards & connect
to CNN news, NBA, the White House, Academy Awards or learn all
about Hawaii, Israel and more: http://keith.martin.home.att.net/
"gatt" <gatt@no-spam> wrote in message
news:vkmPa.20509$aD6.17326@no-spam
> "Baxter" <lbax01.spaminator@no-spam> wrote in message
>
> > > Utter nonsense. The bubble was leaking badly before the election,
> > > much less before Bush took office.
> >
> > Really? Do provide a link that demonstrates that. I
>
> HAAAHAA. HAHAHA. HAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAA!
>
> YOU?! Telling somebody ELSE to prove something?
>
> Where'd you find that cheap gas, Baxter? Where'd you get those degrees you
> claimed to have?
>
> HAHAHAAAAAA!
>
I must admit your response had me laughing out loud. But, I'm also amused by
the mentality that says, "If you can provide a link - your post must be
accurate!" KM
--
(-:alohacyberian:-) At my website there are 3000 live cameras or
visit NASA, play games, read jokes, send greeting cards & connect
to CNN news, NBA, the White House, Academy Awards or learn all
about Hawaii, Israel and more: http://keith.martin.home.att.net/
"Hal Lillywhite" <hlillywh@no-spam> wrote in message
news:ccf77bfa.0307101837.1e95bada@no-spam
> "Baxter" <lbax01.spaminator@no-spam> wrote in message
news:<vgrlsf649umb58@no-spam>...
>
> > No you haven't. Not even once have you provided a link.
>
> Before you call me a liar again you best do a search. No, I'm not
> going to do it for you but will point out that in a previous cycle of
> this discussion I referenced the same link (money.com) with the same
> suggestion to plug in a few tech companies and look at the time their
> stock started down. Now go do your homework.
>
> > Go to http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=^DJI&d=t You'll find it pretty
flat...
>
> Which is the *Dow-Jones* average! We were talking about the dot com
> bubble. Can you guess how many dot coms were included in the 30
> stocks that make up the Dow-Jones? Sheesh!
>
> Now please address the fact that government cannot control the
> economy. And please apologize for your accusations and weasling.
> *You* claimed the dot com bubble didn't burst till after Bush took
> office. When confronted with evidence to the contrary you change the
> subject to the Dow-Jones. And you refuse to even discuss the fact
> that the dot coms were mostly junk stocks to begin with, not
> profitable and not likely to make a profit. We're better off without
> most of those companies. Nor have you recognized the error of your
> idiotic claim that nobody knows why the dot com bubble burst.
>
Making unsubstantiated claims and then when he's confronted with facts,
changing the subject and evading the issue as though you'll be stupid enough
to be thrown off track is Baxter's trademark. He's even an embarrassment to
most Leftwing Liberals. KM
--
(-:alohacyberian:-) At my website there are 3000 live cameras or
visit NASA, play games, read jokes, send greeting cards & connect
to CNN news, NBA, the White House, Academy Awards or learn all
about Hawaii, Israel and more: http://keith.martin.home.att.net/
"Baxter" <lbax01.spaminator@no-spam> wrote in message
news:vgsc99ihe66hd3@no-spam
> "Hal Lillywhite" <hlillywh@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:ccf77bfa.0307101837.1e95bada@no-spam
> >
> > So what if 90% of the dot com decline happend when Bush was president?
>
> I rest my case.
>
With the admission that you have not concept of how equity markets work. You
never made a case, you spouted a bunch of erroneous nonesense and when the
facts were presented, you evaded the issue! TaDa! KM
--
(-:alohacyberian:-) At my website there are 3000 live cameras or
visit NASA, play games, read jokes, send greeting cards & connect
to CNN news, NBA, the White House, Academy Awards or learn all
about Hawaii, Israel and more: http://keith.martin.home.att.net/
"Baxter" <lbax01.spaminator@no-spam> wrote in message