|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 536 responses total. |
gull
|
|
response 224 of 536:
| 
Oct 21 13:48 UTC 2003 |
Wesley Clark is apparently going to skip the Iowa Caucus and concentrate
on primaries he's more likely to win. McCain tried this same tactic in
2000.
|
tod
|
|
response 225 of 536:
|
Oct 21 15:34 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
klg
|
|
response 226 of 536:
|
Oct 21 16:10 UTC 2003 |
"Weasley" is not "likely" to win any primaries, as far as we can tell.
|
tod
|
|
response 227 of 536:
|
Oct 21 16:48 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
klg
|
|
response 228 of 536:
|
Oct 22 01:45 UTC 2003 |
(We have no pets.)
|
tod
|
|
response 229 of 536:
|
Oct 22 15:41 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
tinman
|
|
response 230 of 536:
|
Oct 22 17:12 UTC 2003 |
HEY SABRE I WENT TO ARBORNET AND HACKED RYAN`S ACOUNT I DIDN`T THINK I COULD
DO IT BUT AFTER FINGER IT GAVE ME SOME clues and woolah it was hacked
his account has patron privleges so its cool to telnet to differant sites..
talk to you later.......
|
klg
|
|
response 231 of 536:
|
Oct 30 17:24 UTC 2003 |
We just wanted to make certain that everybody has seen the tremendous
news about our economic recovery. It appears the Bush haters have lost
another issue:
"U.S. economic growth surged in the third quarter at the fastest pace
in nearly two decades, the government said today, coming in much
stronger than economists expected. Gross domestic product, the
broadest measure of economic activity, grew at a 7.2 percent annual
rate in the quarter after growing 3.3 percent in the second quarter,
the Commerce Department reported."
Four more years!
|
slynne
|
|
response 232 of 536:
|
Oct 30 17:34 UTC 2003 |
Oh man, I hope not.
|
klg
|
|
response 233 of 536:
|
Oct 30 17:42 UTC 2003 |
(It appears you have much more confidence in the Democratic candidates
thatn seems warranted. Perhaps you have not seen the recent debates.)
|
rcurl
|
|
response 234 of 536:
|
Oct 30 18:29 UTC 2003 |
The Democratic debates make more sense than Bush's news conferences.
|
slynne
|
|
response 235 of 536:
|
Oct 30 18:42 UTC 2003 |
Re233 - Heh. Well. I have to admit I havent seen the most recent
debates. Still, I cant think of a worse person to be president except
for certain Mnetters/Grexers but they arent running. Whew.
I was just listening to an interview with Senator McCain and all I
could think was that things would have been sooooo much better if he
had won the nomination. Oh well.
|
scott
|
|
response 236 of 536:
|
Oct 30 19:31 UTC 2003 |
Great numbers! Now where are the jobs, klg?
|
mcnally
|
|
response 237 of 536:
|
Oct 30 19:55 UTC 2003 |
re #231: Excellent. Now that all our economic problems are solved,
it must be time to lower taxes again!
|
klg
|
|
response 238 of 536:
|
Oct 30 20:01 UTC 2003 |
Mr. mcnally-
You seem to have it backwards. As we are seeing demonstrated, tax
reduction solves economic problems. Not the other way around.
Mr. scott-
It is a well-established principle that employment is a lagging
economic indicator. The jobs picture will surely keep improving.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 239 of 536:
|
Oct 30 20:37 UTC 2003 |
If there's a problem with the policy I mockingly put forth,
that's because I was sarcastically stating the Bush
administration's apparent reasoning on tax policy.
I happen to agree with you that their logic is pretty backwards
but I'm frankly surprised to see you admit it on the record..
|
tod
|
|
response 240 of 536:
|
Oct 30 22:36 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
richard
|
|
response 241 of 536:
|
Oct 31 02:36 UTC 2003 |
#231-- an economic "recovery" on paper doesn't mean anything to
voters. What has happened is that companies have shed so many jobs and
laid so many people off, and downsized so much, that they aren't
bleeding as much and their bottom lines are looking better. But that
doesn't translate into jobs. If they add jobs, the bottom line will
look worse again.
So it isn't about how the economy looks "on paper", its how the economy
looks to the average working person. The fact that fortune 500 CEO's
ad their accounts are breathing easier doesn't mean much to the rest of
us. The jobs aren't there.
And you can't call an economy healthy anyway when we are running a huge
national defecit, a defecit that was all but paid down by the end of
the Clinton years. The economy was healthier before Clinton left
office than it is now and thats a fact. These last hard years have
been during the BUSH administration and thats what the voters will
remember. Voters, the majority of whom, voted against Bush last time
anyway. Or did you forget that Bush LOST the popular vote in this
country in 2000.
|
bru
|
|
response 242 of 536:
|
Oct 31 10:05 UTC 2003 |
a nearly 7% growth rate is the highest in nearly 20 years. Cars and housing
sales at record highs and an increase in exports. Hopefully the jobs will
follow.
|
keesan
|
|
response 243 of 536:
|
Oct 31 10:50 UTC 2003 |
Housing sales are due to low interest rates which are due to a poor economy.
|
gull
|
|
response 244 of 536:
|
Oct 31 13:53 UTC 2003 |
I'm glad the economy is improving, and I hope the job market gets better
too. But I'm not holding my breath. There are still massive layoffs
and cutbacks going on. Compuware recently cut some salaries by as much
as 50%.
|
goose
|
|
response 245 of 536:
|
Oct 31 14:22 UTC 2003 |
50%? I find that a little hard to believe.
|
jp2
|
|
response 246 of 536:
|
Oct 31 14:50 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
richard
|
|
response 247 of 536:
|
Oct 31 17:39 UTC 2003 |
jp2, Bush lost the popular vote. That is a fact. Since he lost the popular
vote, that means more people voted AGAINST Bush-- meaning didn't vote for
him-- than voted for him. More,
even if its one person more, is a majority. In this case it was actually
several million more people who voted for Gore than for Bush. Bush won the
electoral college, he lost the popular vote. Those are the facts JP2
|
mcnally
|
|
response 248 of 536:
|
Oct 31 17:50 UTC 2003 |
Jamie is being deliberately disingenuous by being ambiguous in his
use of the phrase "voters". It's true for several reasons that a
majority of potential voters didn't vote against Bush. The first,
of course, is that in our system you don't cast votes *against*
people, you cast votes for them (or for an elector who is supposed
to vote for them.) The second is that given the huge number of
potential voters who chose not to vote, neither major party candidate
had a majority of voters who voted against them (or rather, for their
opponent.)
He also deliberately confutes the terms "deficit" and "debt", which
would be a curious oversight for one who seizes any opportunity to
accuse the rest of us of ignorance while lecturing on trivial details
of the structure of the federal reserve system, were it not so
obviously a deliberate attempt to invent a pretext to attack Richard..
|
