Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
<<Hey Titan, wouldn't any President who followed any religion be a "Faith Based Presidency"?>>
No. They may have a particular faith but it would not have or have to have it's base spread throughout the nation. Separation of church and state, remember? Smart politicians do not impose their religious beliefs on me. I don't vote for them if they do.
read the article
on ihub today and I read it earlier this morning:
Re: Off Topic Discussions
The following link is a very long article from today's New York Times. Entitled "Without a Doubt", it details the evolution of the Bush "faith-based presidency":
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/17/m...print&position=
The following excerpt from the article pretty much sums up the Bush presidency:
"In the summer of 2002, after I had written an article in Esquire that the White House didn't like about Bush's former communications director, Karen Hughes, I had a meeting with a senior adviser to Bush. He expressed the White House's displeasure, and then he told me something that at the time I didn't fully comprehend -- but which I now believe gets to the very heart of the Bush presidency.
The aide said that guys like me were ''in what we call the reality-based community,'' which he defined as people who ''believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.'' I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. ''That's not the way the world really works anymore,'' he continued. ''We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.''
I disagree.
just sent to me by a friend from Texas:
Subj: Things to ponder...
Date: 10/17/2004 2:15:21 PM Pacific Daylight Time
Saddam was a good guy when Reagan armed him, a
> bad guy when Bush's daddy made war on him, a good guy
> when Cheney did business with him and a bad guy when
> Bush needed a "we can't find Bin Laden" diversion.
>
> Trade with Cuba is wrong because the country is
> communist, but trade with China and Vietnam is vital
> to a spirit of international harmony.
>
> A woman can't be trusted with decisions about
> her own body, but multinational corporations can make
> decisions affecting all mankind without regulation.
>
> Jesus loves you, and shares your hatred of
> homosexuals and Hillary Clinton.
>
> The best way to improve military morale is to
> praise the troops in speeches while slashing veterans'
> benefits and combat pay.
>
> If condoms are kept out of schools, adolescents
> won't have sex.
>
> Providing health care to all Iraqis is sound
> policy. Providing health care to all Americans is
> socialism.
>
> HMOs and insurance companies have the best
> interests of the public at heart.
>
> Global warming and tobacco's link to cancer are
> junk science, but creationism should be taught in
> schools.
>
> A president lying about an extramarital affair
> is an impeachable offense. A president lying to enlist
> support for a war in which thousands die is solid
> defense policy.
>
> Government should limit itself to the powers
> named in the Constitution, which include banning gay
> marriages and censoring the Internet.
>
> The public has a right to know about Hillary's
> cattle trades, but George Bush's cocaine conviction is
> none of our business.
>
> Being a drug addict is a moral failing and a
> crime, unless you're a conservative radio host. Then
> it's an illness, and you need our prayers for your
> recovery.
>
> You support states' rights, which means Attorney
> General John Ashcroft can tell states what local voter
> initiatives they have the right to adopt.
>
> What Bill Clinton did in the 1960s is of vital
> national interest, but what Bush did in the '80s is
> irrelevant
<<We will become, in time 2 whirlwinds in within one boundary, in a house divided.>>
Like he said, "You're either with us or you're against us". It has divided not only the U.S. with some of our allies, it has divided the nation. Those words were the worst thing Bush could have said, IMO. It had a horrible effect on everyone. Everyone!
But I must say orange trendline, this is a healthy debate and I appreciate your time discussing these issues with me. I'm hearing what you're saying. Thanks.
Nancie
I agree that there are stories told in the documentary that have some truth and some questionable theories, but as I sat watching the film I told myself that if only 5% of the film is true, we're in big trouble. I can't vote for Mr. Bush. I'm not "with" him. Not a big deal for you as he will most likely win. But I don't like his too quick involvement in a war with a country we didn't have a problem with (Iraq had a huge problem, but not with us - lots of countries have problems - shall we go into all of them looking for WMD's?) or that Cheney is a condescending, lying Halliburton schmuck. I don't like that Bush's good old boy attitude and his religious beliefs guide him to make judgements and decisions about our nation, our citizenry. It goes against everything I believe in. Oh, and let's not forget the questions about his Natl. Guard record. Maybe he never showed up for that physical because he is an alcoholic (and was involved in other illegal drug use) and evidence of that would have gotten him in trouble.
I look forward to seeing the pro-Bush documentaries. Like I said, I'm not afraid to see them and I'm willing to pay to see them.
who says they don't evaluate his claims? are you sure "they" don't?
<< disagree, I think most of the country has dismissed him at this point.>>
Not everyone I know! I would say about half of the country has dismissed him - it's that fear thing all over again. You're either with us or you're against us - who said that? Well, ya can't see Fahrenheit 9/11 if you're with us! So the movie plays to the choir. As a democrat, I look forward to paying money to see Celsius 9/11.
Interesting Edwards/Chris Matthews interview (excerpt here):
MATTHEWS: Let me ask you if it’s relevant in this case. Let’s talk about Iraq. During your debate, it was a hell of a debate, the vice president said never suggested a connection between Iraq and 9/11 and yet we have all this video tape, from “Meet the Press” especially, three or four times he said there was a meeting in Prague between Iraqi intelligence before, with Muhammad Atta, the lead hijacker, clearly suggesting a relationship. Why do you think the President or the vice president said something that’s clearly contradictable by the video tape?
EDWARDS: I think it’s a pattern. It’s been a pattern for this vice president to say things that are calculate to (UNINTELLIGIBLE). I don’t think it’s an accident I think that has been a pattern. For when he says – when he says to the American people in that debate as he did, and remember, he was responding to me, I said you are the one that has suggested that some connection between 9/11 and Saddam Hussein and he said, well, I’ve never said that, I’ve never suggested that. It’s just false. Not true.
MATTHEWS: You think he forgot all the times he said – suggested it? EDWARDS: No, of course he didn’t forget. I think it has been very carefully calibrated to keep moving the line each time he talks about it and it becomes more and more obvious to the American people that there is no connection between Saddam Hussein and 9/11.
MATTHEWS: Does the video tape say he is dishonest?
EDWARDS: They video tape says that what he has been saying is not true. That’s the way I look at it.
MATTHEWS: Let’s talk about this moving the line that you talked about. In the beginning he said there was weapons of mass destruction. As did many people and you believed them because there was the evidence apparent to the country. He also suggested many times – this is on video tape from “Meet the Press” that there was a possible connection between Saddam Hussein’s intelligence operation and Muhammad Atta leading the horror of 9/11. Now he says that we attacked Iraq because it was the closest possible nexus between the terrorist base and the terrorists. In other words, round up the usual suspect. Do you think that’s grounds for a war?
EDWARDS: I think that…MATTHEWS: Is it grounds for war to say that somebody…
EDWARDS: Let me ask you a question. I think if you look at that in the context of North Korea, very, very dangerous, having nuclear weapons. We know they have nuclear capability. Iran has moved far along in their nuclear weapons program under this President and this vice president. Why? The reality is of the three country that George Bush said were the Axis of Evil, we invaded the country that didn’t have nuclear capabilities. So I think the facts of the matter, things have gotten much worse in terms of the possibility of nuclear weapons getting in the hands of terrorists on their watch.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6250963/
Posted by: Chris McConnel
In reply to: wstera2 who wrote msg# 74214 Date: 10/16/2004 12:59:34 AM
Post #
So you are saying that Kerry has to always be dipolmatic to his political opponent? In an election?
Are you kidding?
TOUCHE!
Is it an error on Schwab that reads 30.61 in after hrs.? +.68
I'm still ahead on JCOM but it will be a looonng weekend! Might sell some tomorrow if it shows any sign of life. Keep me posted jra.
<<do I even dare to take a chance on JCOM's earnings on Monday?>>
if you find out, let me know!
OT-
CNBC
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
L I V E V O T E
RESULTS
Total Votes: 3882
Who won the debate?
Bush
21%
Kerry
79%
Votes tallied every 60 seconds.
Bush's mystery bulge
http://cryptome.org/bush-bulge.htm#28
QLGC up in after hrs.?? I see it at 30.75
<<"I know how the world works">>
here's how it works W: the world is hard at work because and in most jobs "it's hard work". whining at it's best.
msnbc:
SHUSTER'S CORNER
Shuster reports on the debate—by the numbers
Questions: 17 on Iraq
4 on homeland security, 2 on general judgments, 1 on character
Repeated phrases/buzz words:
Pres. Bush
Free/freedom—35 times
Strong—12 times
Hard work—7 times
Threat/protect American people—16 times
Progess—5 times
Mixed message—around 7 times
John Kerry
Misjudge/mislead—11 times
Alliance—12 times
Plan—17 times
Safer—5 times
Change directioin—7 times
Zeev, am I a pecan to even believe for a second that Kerry has squashed Mr. Bush? I think Kerry wins one this hands down...but you can call me a pecan!
any news on JCOM??
looks like she's on the move again...
sold yesterday (too early), bought some back today (too early??lol)
Yee-haw!! JCOM!!
Boy Howdy!
Well, good luck with that JCOM jra! We seem to be on the same wavelength here...
ok jra, i bought - too early - more JCOM today. I'm holdin'...hopefully not foldin'...
<<Trader's dilemma #49: I've got a coupla days pay taken off the table. Should I take the day off or "go for it?">>
You know the answer to this!!
<< Spongebob was probably on. Or NFL Football>>
I'd rather watch Spongebob. He's better looking than Maria.
Maria Bartiromo, on Chris Matthews today, said W is going to win by 12 pts. Hmmm. Probably so. Did anyone hear Mr. Rubin interviewed by George Stephanophoulus today(sp. sorry!)? He made a lot of sense to me...and he's Kerry's economic advisor.
jra, are you still holding JCOM? We've done well since yesterday...
So you're out?
Same here JRA2. Bought at 27.60.
Good. I only sold a small portion. JCOM
Zeev, I too sold my JCOM at 27.35 yesterday. At what point might you buy back in? thanks
Gold related post...For those of you interested in Newmont Mining:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/08/international/asia/08indo.html?hp
Spurred by Illness, Indonesians Lash Out at U.S. Mining Giant
By JANE PERLEZ and EVELYN RUSLI
Published: September 8, 2004
UYAT BAY BEACH, Indonesia - First the fish began to disappear. Then villagers began developing strange rashes and bumps. Finally in January, Masna Stirman, aided by a $1.50 wet nurse, gave birth to a tiny, shriveled girl with small lumps and wrinkled skin.
"The nurse said: 'Ma'am, the baby has deformities,' " Mrs. Stirman, 39, recalled in an interview. Unable to get any meaningful medical help in this remote fishing village of about 300 people, she watched as her fourth child suffered for months and then died in July.
The infant's death came after years of complaints by local fishermen about waste dumped in the ocean by the owner of a nearby gold mine, the Newmont Mining Corporation, the world's biggest gold producer, based in Denver. It also kicked up a political brawl pitting Indonesia's feisty environmental groups against the American mining giant, which has been trailed by allegations of pollution on four continents.
The fight has aroused intense interest in mining circles and among environmental groups for the fresh concerns it raises about how rich multinational companies - especially those that extract resources like coal, copper and gold as well as oil and natural gas - conduct themselves in poor nations.
<<We had Qlgc correct last week , didn't we ?>>
We did!
just bought some jcom at 25.70 - call me crazy...