Seems to me......
 

"Jim -" wrote in message
news:%Mr8b.426340$o%2.193578@sccrnsc02...
It seems to me that things would be about the same, perhaps even worse right now even
if Al Gore were POTUS.

Yet the Dems/Libs continue to blame GWB for everything under the sun, including the
recession of 1999-2003 and the fact that bin Laden has not been caught yet.

So how would things have been different if Al Gore were in office? Exactly what
would
he have done differently to make things better or worse? Do you really think that
9-11
would not have happened under his watch, and if so, why? Would the economy have
rebounded in 2001 under his leadership, and if so, why?

On the reverse, what did GWB do to precipitate the 9-11 attack? What did he do to
cause the 1999-2003 recession?

This is your time to explain how things....time to speak up or shut up.

Operators are standing by.


Silence...as expected.

Seems to me......
 

Silence...as expected.


Stuff the hook a little deeper into the bait.

Nobody *knows* how or what Al Gore would have done. Why argue about it?

Did we know, in advance, what GWB was going to do? How he would respond to
challenges that nobody had even imagined yet? That's what you're asking people
to advance on Gore's behalf, and whatever anybody conjectures will be turned
into fodder for an argument. We can't agree on what's actually going on in the
world right this minute. How could we possibly agree on what would have, could
have, might have, should have? No wonder most people are taking a pass.
Changing your screen name again might help -for a while.

Good technique though: (shift the focus almost anywhere else except where it
belongs. The guy who lost the last election is as good a stalking horse as
any).

Whether or not Gore would have done a miserable job as POTUS has no bearing on
the responsibility of the guy currently in office to perform capably. "What
Gore would have done....." is not relevant.

Seems to me......
 

Where is Gary H when you need him!!??

"Jim -" wrote in message
t...

"Jim -" wrote in message
news:%Mr8b.426340$o%2.193578@sccrnsc02...
It seems to me that things would be about the same, perhaps even worse
right now even
if Al Gore were POTUS.

Yet the Dems/Libs continue to blame GWB for everything under the sun,
including the
recession of 1999-2003 and the fact that bin Laden has not been caught
yet.

So how would things have been different if Al Gore were in office?
Exactly what
would
he have done differently to make things better or worse? Do you really
think that
9-11
would not have happened under his watch, and if so, why? Would the
economy have
rebounded in 2001 under his leadership, and if so, why?

On the reverse, what did GWB do to precipitate the 9-11 attack? What
did he do to
cause the 1999-2003 recession?

This is your time to explain how things....time to speak up or shut up.

Operators are standing by.


Silence...as expected.

Seems to me......
 

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
Silence...as expected.


Stuff the hook a little deeper into the bait.

Nobody *knows* how or what Al Gore would have done. Why argue about it?



Duh, my point exactly. So why place the blame on GBW unless you can definitively state
what things Al Gore would have done differently.

For all we know things would have been much worse under his *leadership*.

Seems to me......
 

Jim - wrote:

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
Silence...as expected.


Stuff the hook a little deeper into the bait.

Nobody *knows* how or what Al Gore would have done. Why argue about it?



Duh, my point exactly. So why place the blame on GBW unless you can definitively state
what things Al Gore would have done differently.


There is a theory around that states 9-11, while planned for some time,
was actually launched as payback on Bush for at least two reasons:

1. He is the son of Bush I, who "besmirched" Saudi Arabia by placing
U.S. troops on "holy" Saudi soil, and,

2. Bush II stated he was not going to "engage" in the Israeli/so-called
Palestinian peace talks and, in fact, he did nothing for more than a
year into his reign to get engaged. This absolutely infuriated many in
the Arab/Moslem world, who were hoping a U.S. president would continued
to press concessions upon the Israelis as the price for peace.

You may not like this theory, but there may well be some merit to it.

There also is some conjecture Bush knew 9-11 was coming, and did
virtually nothing to stop it.

Bush certainly turned the events into political hay for his failing
administration.


* * *
email sent to will *never* get to me.

Seems to me......
 

Maybe it was the unions who staged 9-11.
Sure they had to sacrifice a few hundred police and firefighters, but then
they tend to vote conservative anyway.

Seems to me......
 

"Gary Warner" wrote in message
...

Ok, I'll play, but first...

You make the post at 6:29pm and then at 6:57pm you say "Silence...as
expected." (At least that's
how my newsreader shows it.) Why not wait a day or two, or at least an
hour, before you get all
huffy and stuffy?



Guilty of being impatient.

Not guilty of being huffy and stuffy.

Peace brother. I only asked some legitimate questions.

Seems to me......
 

Out fishing on Monkey Business?

"Mark Browne" wrote in message
news:xts8b.426508$o%2.193901@sccrnsc02...
Where is Gary H when you need him!!??

"Jim -" wrote in message
t...

"Jim -" wrote in message
news:%Mr8b.426340$o%2.193578@sccrnsc02...
It seems to me that things would be about the same, perhaps even worse
right now even
if Al Gore were POTUS.

Yet the Dems/Libs continue to blame GWB for everything under the sun,
including the
recession of 1999-2003 and the fact that bin Laden has not been caught
yet.

So how would things have been different if Al Gore were in office?
Exactly what
would
he have done differently to make things better or worse? Do you
really
think that
9-11
would not have happened under his watch, and if so, why? Would the
economy have
rebounded in 2001 under his leadership, and if so, why?

On the reverse, what did GWB do to precipitate the 9-11 attack? What
did he do to
cause the 1999-2003 recession?

This is your time to explain how things....time to speak up or shut
up.

Operators are standing by.


Silence...as expected.

Seems to me......
 

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
Duh, my point exactly. So why place the blame on GBW unless you can
definitively state
what things Al Gore would have done differently.

That standard would exempt all presidents from criticism for all time.

I dislike GWB as much as anybody, but in spite of your trolled assertion,
as a
liberal I don't "blame" him diorectly for 9-11 or the recession. I do hold
him
responsible for the decisions he has made so far and the consequences of
those
decisions......that's fair.

The standard should be: How do Bush's decisions compare to decisions that
would
have predictably different outcomes? Not: How do Bush's decisions compare
to
the decisions that somebody else was never called upon to make.

For all we know things would have been much worse under his *leadership*.

Jim, we may well agree on this. Gore was no prize. The only thing I though
he
had going for him was a higher IQ than Bush.
Neither candidate was an obvious choice.
I don't hold Bush responsible for merely doing a better job than Gore
*might*
have done (in his worst moments?)........I hold Bush responsible for
effectively leading, or failing to lead, the country. That wouldn't change
if
he ran *unopposed*

That's like some woman telling her husband "Gee, dear, I'm glad you only
beat
me once a week. That other guy I thought about marrying? I bet if I
married him
he'd beat me up every two or three days."

The standard is based on individual, effective, responsible performance-
not
just being slightly (debatedly) better than some other guy who didn't get
the
job.



The majority of the Left Wing Trash posts do blame GMB for causing 9/11
(look at Harry's Post above). Blame GMB for every other thing related to
the economy, even though it was dying before the election and AGores actions
started a huge slide. Investors do not like uncertainty. As to AGore
having a higher IQ. I nearly ruined my keyboard. AGore probably does not
score higher than 110-115. He is not very smart, and no personality to
boot. And the worse part is we would have a rather unintelligent
micromanager. Sure sign of failure.
Bill

Seems to me......
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message

There also is some conjecture Bush knew 9-11 was coming,


Not among those with more than a two-digit IQ.

Seems to me......
 

"Gould 0738" wrote in message


...The only thing I though he had going for him was a higher IQ than Bush.

Based on what? GWB is a terrible public speaker who has a substantially
better academic success record than AG, and now has added to his already
fairly lengthy record as a chief executive -- a resume area wherein AG's
record is embarrassingly bare. AG is a comfortable extemporaneous speaker
who addresses all audiences as if they were second-grade half-wits. All
he's ever done is check the polls and change his clothes. I don't think
we'll run into either one at the next Mensa meeting, but I'd bet that W
would be closer to the door.

JG

Seems to me......
 

On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 01:36:37 GMT, "John Gaquin"
wrote:


"Harry Krause" wrote in message

There also is some conjecture Bush knew 9-11 was coming,


Not among those with more than a two-digit IQ.


Did you hear the one about the altar boy and the candlestick?
Ooops, sorry.

noah

Seems to me......
 

"del cecchi" wrote in message news:CCv8b.293

Mensa meetings were boring.....

"...i-n-g-s..."? With an "s"? What on God's earth prompted you to go back
a second time? ;-)


JG

Seems to me......
 

On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 03:40:04 GMT, "John Gaquin"
wrote:


"del cecchi" wrote in message news:CCv8b.293

Mensa meetings were boring.....

"...i-n-g-s..."? With an "s"? What on God's earth prompted you to go back
a second time? ;-)


JG


....musta been God's altar boys.
Why the hell are you using that nic?

....nevermind, I know.
noah

Seems to me......
 

"bb" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 01:14:27 GMT, "Calif Bill"
wrote:


The majority of the Left Wing Trash posts do blame GMB for causing 9/11
(look at Harry's Post above).

Harry's not the majority of liberal thinkers. Anything you can post
to prove your assertion that the majority of lefties blame GWB for
9/11?

You are not paying attention to your sides claims.


the economy, even though it was dying before the election and AGores
actions
started a huge slide.

I'm just dying to hear, what did Al Gore do to start the slide? I'd
especially love to hear you explain how Mr. Gore controls Mr.
Greenspan.

The election debacle upset the market greatly. Where AL tried to get the
rules changed after election and all the law suits, put a huge, make that a
HUGE, amount of uncertainty and turmoil in to the markets. Accelerated the
slide that was already starting. Big grease on the skids. No one in the
elected government controls Greenspan. Which may be somewhat bad for us. A
lot of the problems were caused by his policies!!! When the market
overheated shades of 1928 and an IPO with a Website is selling for $300
million, he should have jumped on the margin rates. Not say publicly the
market is overheated (or words to that effect).


Sure sign of failure.

As opposed to what? Bush's sucess?


Even bigger failure. I do not approve of all of GWB's moves, but we would
have had more terror attacks in the US under Al. He would of shot a bunch
of cruise missiles into the Middle East and would have destroyed Al Quaida
as much as Clinton's missile shots did.

bb

Seems to me......
 

"noah" wrote in message

... Why the hell are you using that nic?

????????

Seems to me......
 

John,
I think noah has your name confused with the convicted pedophile priest who
was killed in prison.
"John Gaquin" wrote in message
...

"noah" wrote in message

... Why the hell are you using that nic?

????????

Seems to me......
 

"bb" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 05:14:59 GMT, "Calif Bill"
wrote:

The majority of the Left Wing Trash posts do blame GMB for causing
9/11
(look at Harry's Post above).

Harry's not the majority of liberal thinkers. Anything you can post
to prove your assertion that the majority of lefties blame GWB for
9/11?

You are not paying attention to your sides claims.

This wasn't about "my side's claims". It was about your assertion
that the majority of liberals blame GBW. You made the claim, I just
asked for something to back it up. Easy to make blanket assertions,
hard to back them up, eh?

The election debacle upset the market greatly. Where AL tried to get the
rules changed after election and all the law suits, put a huge, make that
a
HUGE, amount of uncertainty and turmoil in to the markets.

And it's all Al's fault? No problems with the teams of lawyers the
Bush's clan already had it Florida to contest the results? No
problems with the election fraud by the brother of the candidate, who
happened to be the governor of Florida at the time? Interesting that
you find it so easy to place all the blame on Mr. Gore.

Accelerated the
slide that was already starting. Big grease on the skids. No one in the
elected government controls Greenspan. Which may be somewhat bad for us.
A
lot of the problems were caused by his policies!!! When the market
overheated shades of 1928 and an IPO with a Website is selling for $300
million, he should have jumped on the margin rates. Not say publicly the
market is overheated (or words to that effect).

Even so, you placed the blame for the markets slide on Mr. Gore?

Even bigger failure. I do not approve of all of GWB's moves, but we
would
have had more terror attacks in the US under Al.
He would of shot a bunch
of cruise missiles into the Middle East and would have destroyed Al
Quaida
as much as Clinton's missile shots did.


There is absolutely nothing you could do to provide any basis for the
above claim. Mindless, partisan, blathering.

bb



More, much more basis than claiming Jeb Bush for election fraud. Was the
local election boards job to check out the names. The Democrat controlled
boards did not do their job. They had plenty of time. As to teams of
lawers, was smart as they probably knew that the Democratic party was going
to protest the election if it appeared they were losing. They contacted and
led witnesses as early as 3 pm during the election. The ballot was designed
and approved by both parties.
Mindless, partisan, blathering describes you totally!
Bill

Seems to me......
 

Subject: Seems to me......
From: "Jim -"

Duh, my point exactly. So why place the blame on GBW unless you can
definitively state
what things Al Gore would have done differently.


Duh, that is just a stupid statement.

For all we know things would have been much worse under his *leadership*.

Duh, for all we know they could be better.
Duh, we'll never know.
Duh, it doesn't really matter because we have to deal with what is, not with
what may have been.


Capt. Bill

Seems to me......
 

On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 20:27:59 GMT, "John Gaquin"
wrote:

Ah... thanks, Bill. Easy error, I suppose, if you don't read carefully.

JG


My apologies, John. I misread your name, and I was wrong.
noah

Seems to me......
 

"Jim -" wrote in message
t...


Silence...as expected.


Did you think there were hordes of people at computers, awaiting your
mindless drivel, anxious to respond?

Here's your answer: Some things would've been the same, and some would've
been different. One thing for su With Gore, we'd have a president who
appealed to peoples' minds instead of their rectums, one who could pronounce
words with more than 3 syllables or words with trickly letter combinations.
We'd have a president who, while delivering speeches containing somber news,
wouldn't be smiling like someone who'd swallowed a handful of quaaludes.
But, you wouldn't know the difference.

Seems to me......
 

"Calif Bill" wrote in message
nk.net...

even though it was dying before the election and AGores actions
started a huge slide. Investors do not like uncertainty.

You must've been three sheets to the wind when you wrote this. It's hard to
believe you're the same person who sometimes offer lucid, accurate boating
advice.

"The market" reacts to absolutely EVERYTHING. It burps when a judge says the
word "Microsoft", when the president is rumored to be making some sort of
announcement, and when almost any stock sector leader, like G.E., announces
earnings, even if the announcement is positive, but not positive enough.

The market's reactions are barely connected to the state of the economy, or
anything else for that matter. The immediate index changes you hear about
are largely the result of huge trades by institutional investors, like
mutual funds & pension managers. In other words, little conference rooms
containing a handful of so-called "experts", who make correct or incorrect
decisions about as often as you or I.

Al Gore.....sheeeeit. Next, you're gonna say the market tanked because the
TV show "Spongebob Squarepants" was finally cancelled.

Seems to me......
 

"John Gaquin" wrote in message
...

...The only thing I though he had going for him was a higher IQ than
Bush.

Based on what? GWB is a terrible public speaker who has a substantially
better academic success record than AG, and now has added to his already
fairly lengthy record as a chief executive -- a resume area wherein AG's
record is embarrassingly bare. AG is a comfortable extemporaneous speaker
who addresses all audiences as if they were second-grade half-wits. All
he's ever done is check the polls and change his clothes. I don't think
we'll run into either one at the next Mensa meeting, but I'd bet that W
would be closer to the door.

JG

Perhaps you can explain a few of the following quotes from your leader.

"Those of us who spent time in the agricultural sector and in the heartland,
we understand how unfair the death penalty is."-Omaha, Neb., Feb. 28, 2001


"I appreciate that question because I, in the state of Texas, had heard a
lot of discussion about a faith-based initiative eroding the important
bridge between church and state."-Question and answer session with the
press, Jan. 29, 2001

"Natural gas is hemispheric. I like to call it hemispheric in nature because
it is a product that we can find in our neighborhoods."-Austin, Texas, Dec.
20, 2000

And, the real doozy:
"I am mindful of the difference between the executive branch and the
legislative branch. I assured all four of these leaders that I know the
difference, and that difference is they pass the laws and I execute
them."-Washington, D.C., Dec. 18, 2000

(What country does he think he's living in?)

Seems to me......
 

Totally sober! The discord that the AGore suits inspired was greasing the
skids for an already tanking economy. The market does react to all news,
but some events cause a much greater influence. And "The Florida Election
Debacle" really threw the grease to the ways. (boating reference at least).
Bill

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"Calif Bill" wrote in message
nk.net...

even though it was dying before the election and AGores actions
started a huge slide. Investors do not like uncertainty.

You must've been three sheets to the wind when you wrote this. It's hard
to
believe you're the same person who sometimes offer lucid, accurate boating
advice.

"The market" reacts to absolutely EVERYTHING. It burps when a judge says
the
word "Microsoft", when the president is rumored to be making some sort of
announcement, and when almost any stock sector leader, like G.E.,
announces
earnings, even if the announcement is positive, but not positive enough.

The market's reactions are barely connected to the state of the economy,
or
anything else for that matter. The immediate index changes you hear about
are largely the result of huge trades by institutional investors, like
mutual funds & pension managers. In other words, little conference rooms
containing a handful of so-called "experts", who make correct or incorrect
decisions about as often as you or I.

Al Gore.....sheeeeit. Next, you're gonna say the market tanked because the
TV show "Spongebob Squarepants" was finally cancelled.

Seems to me......
 

Other than me using the wrong word, meant "requirments". I was correct. I
admit the rate is not set by the Federal Reserve system, but the requirments
are.
Bill

"Joe Parsons" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 05:14:59 GMT, "Calif Bill"

wrote:

(why, Oh WHY do I do this...?)

No one in the
elected government controls Greenspan. Which may be somewhat bad for us.
A
lot of the problems were caused by his policies!!! When the market
overheated shades of 1928 and an IPO with a Website is selling for $300
million, he should have jumped on the margin rates. Not say publicly the
market is overheated (or words to that effect).

May I suggest you learn at least some smattering of how the Federal
Reserve
operates? And what power(s) the Chairman (currently Alan Greenspan) has?

Hint: Interest rates on margin accounts ain't on the list.

Second suggestion (oh, no...it's free--but thanks for offering): Look at
the
performance of the major indexes (the Dow would be as good as any) and
overlay
its performance with events of the time.

For instance: A couple of the high-water marks set by the Dow Jones
Industrial
Average were set on January 14, 2000 (the Index hit 11,722). What was
going on
then? March, 2000: Largest dollar gain in history (up 4.93%). How about
the
date the DJIA first dipped below the 10,000 benchmark? March 14, 2001.

Do these figures relate in any way to the uncertainties and maneuverings
of the
election? If so, how?

Please be sure to show your work.

Joe Parsons

Seems to me......
 

"Joe Parsons" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 18:45:38 GMT, "Calif Bill"

wrote:

Other than me using the wrong word, meant "requirments". I was correct.
I
admit the rate is not set by the Federal Reserve system, but the
requirments
are.

Then I'm somewhat puzzled by what you said.

On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 05:14:59 GMT, in rec.boats you wrote:

The election debacle upset the market greatly. Where AL tried to get
the
rules changed after election and all the law suits, put a huge, make
that a
HUGE, amount of uncertainty and turmoil in to the markets. Accelerated
the
slide that was already starting. Big grease on the skids. No one in
the
elected government controls Greenspan. Which may be somewhat bad for
us. A
lot of the problems were caused by his policies!!! When the market
overheated shades of 1928 and an IPO with a Website is selling for $300
million, he should have jumped on the margin rates. Not say publicly
the
market is overheated (or words to that effect).

You say that the rate on margin accounts is set by the Federal Reserve
System.
How do they do this?

And your statement about the "election debacle" (and I think you may have
unintentionally used the perfect word for what happened) "accelerated the
slide"
in the market--how do you come to that conclusion?

And with respect to "Greenspan's policies" relating to the overheated
market
(actually, his term was "irrational exuberance") what powers and/or
authority
does he have that might have avoided the problems you say his policies
created?

Joe Parsons


Bill

"Joe Parsons" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 05:14:59 GMT, "Calif Bill"

wrote:

(why, Oh WHY do I do this...?)

No one in the
elected government controls Greenspan. Which may be somewhat bad for
us.
A
lot of the problems were caused by his policies!!! When the market
overheated shades of 1928 and an IPO with a Website is selling for
$300
million, he should have jumped on the margin rates. Not say publicly
the
market is overheated (or words to that effect).

May I suggest you learn at least some smattering of how the Federal
Reserve
operates? And what power(s) the Chairman (currently Alan Greenspan)
has?

Hint: Interest rates on margin accounts ain't on the list.

Second suggestion (oh, no...it's free--but thanks for offering): Look
at
the
performance of the major indexes (the Dow would be as good as any) and
overlay
its performance with events of the time.

For instance: A couple of the high-water marks set by the Dow Jones
Industrial
Average were set on January 14, 2000 (the Index hit 11,722). What was
going on
then? March, 2000: Largest dollar gain in history (up 4.93%). How
about
the
date the DJIA first dipped below the 10,000 benchmark? March 14, 2001.

Do these figures relate in any way to the uncertainties and
maneuverings
of the
election? If so, how?

Please be sure to show your work.

Joe Parsons




The Federal Reserve has the ability to set margin requirements under it's
rules. How much margin is required. Forget which rules, but do a search on
Margin Requirements and Federal Reserve. He should have raised the margin
to 50 or even 90% of the purchase. Would have stopped the Day Trader /
gambler operations. I think the Requirements were 10%, which says you have
to put up 10% of the purchase price. His term was "irrational exuberance"
but was meaning an overheated / near out of control market.
The AGore election shenanigans meant extreme uncertainty. Who was going to
be President and set the policies for the next 4 years was at stake. This
meant real turmoil in the markets. Markets that were already falling. I
worked for a semiconductor company at the time and we were seeing lots of
order cancellations before the election from the Cisco's, etc. So you have
extreme uncertainty and falling orders, Stage for a real freefall, before
someone can get in and set policies. And the greasing the skids (ways)
comment was exactly what I meant.
Bill

Seems to me......
 

On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 23:59:49 GMT, "Calif Bill"
wrote:

[snip]

The Federal Reserve has the ability to set margin requirements under it's
rules. How much margin is required. Forget which rules, but do a search on
Margin Requirements and Federal Reserve. He should have raised the margin
to 50 or even 90% of the purchase.

The number has been 50% since (IIANM) 1974.

What evidence do you have to show that margined trading has had anything to do
with the decline in stock prices?

In any case, whatever the Federal Reserve might have done with respect to margin
requirements is getting away from your earlier assertion: that "The election
debacle upset the market greatly." I'd still be interested in seeing the
performance of the DJIA on the dates you seem to be claiming that Al Gore "upset
the market," and that he "accelerated the slide that was already starting."

Would have stopped the Day Trader /
gambler operations. I think the Requirements were 10%, which says you have
to put up 10% of the purchase price.

Uh, no--unless there's some huge loophole I've never been made aware of.

His term was "irrational exuberance"
but was meaning an overheated / near out of control market.

I'd like to suggest that what he meant[1] was that the price of many
stocks--especially in the high-tech sector--was out of the realm of what made
economic sense. P/E ratios were all out of proportion on many of these stocks.
I think a better characterization of what he meant was that certain sectors of
the market were overbought. "Overbought" doesn't mean "out of control;" it may
simply mean "overdue for a correction."

But how is it that this correction--which you've just said could have been
avoided had Mr. Greenspan acted in the "correct" way--is attributable to Mr.
Gore's actions in the 2000 election? It seems to me that you've just laid the
blame in Reagan-appointed lap of Alan Greenspan.

The AGore election shenanigans meant extreme uncertainty. Who was going to
be President and set the policies for the next 4 years was at stake. This
meant real turmoil in the markets. Markets that were already falling. I
worked for a semiconductor company at the time and we were seeing lots of
order cancellations before the election from the Cisco's, etc. So you have
extreme uncertainty and falling orders,

But how is the correction in the high-tech sector attributable to Al Gore? I
think you still have to show that the market *was* "on the skids around the time
of the contested election. What were the closing figures during those days?

Stage for a real freefall, before
someone can get in and set policies.

So who would set these "policies?" What powers would they exercise to set them?
What would the effect have been? How do you define "freefall?"

So many questions, so little time...

Joe Parsons

And the greasing the skids (ways)
comment was exactly what I meant.

[1] It's important to keep a couple of things in mind with respect to Mr.
Greenspan: first, the things he says can and do move the markets. Second, he
purposely speaks in highly obtuse, ambiguous terms, which someone once named
"Greenspeak."

OT Seems to me......
 

"Calif Bill" wrote

The AGore election shenanigans meant extreme uncertainty. Who was going
to
be President and set the policies for the next 4 years was at stake. This
meant real turmoil in the markets.

That's funny. By your logic every election would cause turmoil in the
markets.
-rick-

OT Seems to me......
 

"-rick-" wrote in message
...
"Calif Bill" wrote

The AGore election shenanigans meant extreme uncertainty. Who was going
to
be President and set the policies for the next 4 years was at stake.
This
meant real turmoil in the markets.

That's funny. By your logic every election would cause turmoil in the
markets.
-rick-




Most have a non-controversial turnover of power. The next administration is
known with enough time for the market to absorb the news.
Bill

OT Seems to me......
 

On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 03:21:33 GMT, "Calif Bill"
wrote:


"-rick-" wrote in message
...
"Calif Bill" wrote

The AGore election shenanigans meant extreme uncertainty. Who was going
to
be President and set the policies for the next 4 years was at stake.
This
meant real turmoil in the markets.

That's funny. By your logic every election would cause turmoil in the
markets.
-rick-




Most have a non-controversial turnover of power. The next administration is
known with enough time for the market to absorb the news.

What? "Known?"

Joe Parsons

OT Seems to me......
 

"Joe Parsons" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 03:21:33 GMT, "Calif Bill"

wrote:


"-rick-" wrote in message
...
"Calif Bill" wrote

The AGore election shenanigans meant extreme uncertainty. Who was
going
to
be President and set the policies for the next 4 years was at stake.
This
meant real turmoil in the markets.

That's funny. By your logic every election would cause turmoil in the
markets.
-rick-




Most have a non-controversial turnover of power. The next administration
is
known with enough time for the market to absorb the news.

What? "Known?"

Joe Parsons


Maybe I should have put a , (comma) after known. Yes, under normal
circumstances the next President and Administration would be known. Not a
toss up if they can shop the right judge.
Bill