Re: Attack Iraq? - outstanding article

Post #49,259 by dmarker2 8/13/02 6:55:58 PM Reply	Re: Attack Iraq? - outstanding article - excellent logic And this guy was a former adviser to an earlier Republican president. But - let me tell y'all - Bush is going into Iraq no matter what anyone else thinks or says & as mentioned in earlier posts - future generations of US innocents will pay the price long after Bush & cronies are off counting the oil investment dollars. The only good news about Bush is that he will be just like Dad - a one term pres - ousted because he screwed the economy. Sad sad sad Doug Marker
Post #49,281 by wharris2 8/13/02 9:28:43 PM Reply	Re: Attack Iraq? - outstanding article - excellent logic The only good news about Bush is that he will be just like Dad - a one term pres - ousted because he screwed the economy. That is unless the Democratic blockheads to something stupid, like running Gore again. Hell, I'd have voted Democratic last election myself (and I'm almost as right-wing as you can get) if they'd nominated someone like Bill Bradley. There are plenty of decent men in the Democratic party, while Gore is... well, Gore. About as exciting to vote for as a bar of soap. The lawyers would mostly rather be what they are than get out of the way even if the cost was Hammerfall. - Jerry Pournelle
Post #49,311 by dmarker2 8/14/02 1:08:30 AM Reply	Re: Hmmm - good point I seem to recall Gore saying he wouldn't try again & usual commonsense says once having lost to Bush he shouldn't try again. But am sure there are other good candidates. Cheers Doug
Post #49,334 by admin 8/14/02 9:48:48 AM Reply	Bradley would be great. Bradley vs. McCain would have been an actual contest to think about. Regards, -scott anderson "Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
Post #49,337 by snork 8/14/02 10:28:21 AM Reply	It's the Economy? Stupid. The only good news about Bush is that he will be just like Dad - a one term pres - ousted because he screwed the economy. The econonmy was sputtering long before the inauguration. However, it is highly likely that he will be blamed by Joe and Jane Sixpak nonetheless. Kinda like Mr. Clinton was able to take credit for the tech bubble. :) The worst thing that can happen for the Dems is that the economy makes a sustained turn upwards by mid-2003 - which, if we can get out from under the long parade of accounting fiascos and CEO plundering, it has a good chance of doing. "With the bravery of being out of range." - Roger Waters Cliff
Post #49,340 by drewk 8/14/02 10:54:42 AM Reply	Time for a new term Kinda like Mr. Clinton was able to take credit for the tech bubble. :) I no longer believe there ever was a tech bubble. I believe it was an accounting fraud bubble. Did any of the high-profile dot-coms actually show a profit? Subtract the options from the balance sheet -- which everyone should who's taking the tax write-off -- and even most of the "traditional" tech companies (eg: Cisco, Microsoft) showed either losses or much-lower earnings. If the majority of the money "made" during the bubble was from stock price -- particularly considering how much of that didn't exist but for accounting "irregularities" -- then the economy never really grew. === Microsoft offers them the one thing most business people will pay any price for - the ability to say "we had no choice - everyone's doing it that way." -- [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=38978\|Andrew Grygus]
Post #49,344 by Brandioch 8/14/02 11:42:55 AM Reply	Pyramid scheme All the money "made" was from venture capital investments (money being shifted around) and from stock sales (money being shifted around). So, a bunch of companies that never had any chance of showing a profit spent a lot of venture capital -and- A bunch of lemmings thought that they'd get rich off of stock (tulips) and kept buying it at ever increasing prices. There wasn't a "bubble". A lot of money moved from a lot of people to a few people and the media hyped these few.
Post #49,370 by wharris2 8/14/02 3:49:16 PM Reply	Couple of companies, maybe Wasn't this the year Amazon was going to make its first profit? (Either that, or they actually did make their first profit during the last quarter last year, something like that.) If memory serves correctly, I think Red Hat also managed to make money. But generally speaking, you're absolutely correct - there can't have been more than a (small) handful of .com companies that made any sort of profit, and most of them went belly up anyway. Off the top of my head, I can only name two or three companies that are even still in business, and they all seem to be struggling.
Post #49,371 by drewk 8/14/02 4:04:22 PM Reply	Hmm, where was that article IIRC Amazon was one of the companies who would show a loss if they expensed their stock options. And they are one of the "major dot-coms" who won't be doing that. Coincidence? So like I said, if virtually no one in the industry showed a profit, and most of the "booming economy" was attributed to the tech sector, how can anyone claim the economy was doing anything? I'd love to see the "state of the economy" recalculated for the last ... ohh, six years. But only counting revenues, not stock price; and subtracting fraudulant accounting; and expensing stock options. You know, a measure of the actual growth (or not) of the economy. === Microsoft offers them the one thing most business people will pay any price for - the ability to say "we had no choice - everyone's doing it that way." -- [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=38978\|Andrew Grygus]
Post #49,379 by snork 8/14/02 4:49:13 PM Reply	Pioneers get the arrows, yadda yadda . . . there can't have been more than a (small) handful of .com companies that made any sort of profit, and most of them went belly up anyway. It sure seems to me that the traditional "brick and mortar" companies, to coin an annoying phrase, got the biggest reward in the whole dot-bomb craze. Several simply waited for the vulture capitalist to bank roll an obvious failure and let them do the initial development shake-out of a web store front. Then, when it looked a little more stable, they put up their own front with the distribution channels already in place. Several examples that come to mind that I've actually used are Best Buy, Lowes and Barnes & Noble. Whether or not these ventures actually make money or not, I have no idea. But at least they add value to me. "With the bravery of being out of range." - Roger Waters Cliff
Post #49,406 by wharris2 8/14/02 9:07:42 PM Reply	Re: Pioneers get the arrows, yadda yadda Several examples that come to mind that I've actually used are Best Buy, Lowes and Barnes & Noble. Doesn't Barnes and Noble actually offer better prices/shipping than Amazon? Amazon just gets its business because of name recognition - several similar dealers offer better deals. The lawyers would mostly rather be what they are than get out of the way even if the cost was Hammerfall. - Jerry Pournelle
Post #49,419 by a6l6e6x 8/14/02 10:39:07 PM Reply	For technical books, someone... don't remember who, on the old IWeThey recommended [link\|http://www.bookpool.com/\|Bookpool.] When book shopping, it has been worthwhile checking. Alex "Television: chewing gum for the eyes." -- Frank Lloyd Wright
Post #49,469 by Arkadiy 8/15/02 12:32:31 PM Reply	For better prices... ... go to dealtime.com . Or Yahoo Shopping. Or Pricewatch.com . Internet Comparison Shopping - Penny Pinching 'R' Us.
Post #49,341 by Another Scott 8/14/02 10:58:12 AM Reply	Depends on the candidate. There was a recession in the US in 1969-1970 or so. Yet Nixon won a landslide in 1972. McGovern wasn't the right candidate for the time. Whether Bush is re-elected or not depends, to a great degree, on who the Democrats run against him. E.g. I think Bush would have a cakewalk (i.e. win lots of states, but with low total popular turnout) if Lieberman were the Democratic nominee. I think he would likely win against Gore as well. Cheers, Scott.
Post #49,361 by Ashton 8/14/02 2:49:40 PM Reply	I'll buy that. Now, be there Demo smarter than W.. anywhere out there? Sure: McCain (no matter what label he wears), for one. Is there someone with the guts to call a spayed a spayed ? The tact to not disturb too many euphemisms? ie an Honest one? compared to the Murican intolerance for the unpleasant and preference for Disneyland illusion, that is. (ie. Some Things the Murican Peepul just don't wanna Hear, natch) Etc. Damn - do we have to do ALL the work for the RNC, DNC at zIWE? Ashton Betcha McGovern could beat Ashcroft - still!

Welcome to IWETHEY!