Letters to the Editor
-
ShawnWM
So good to hear from you Shawn. You must have missed out on the stock market collapse in early 2000's due to the Fed not cooling the market in the late 90s to reduce the asset inflation. And you really haven't addressed the point. Capital reallocation out of the cold war and the internet craze was a one time deal. Maybe you should look at a gold chart from 1992-2008. Slightly different trend now.
Can't play the same music again.
And you mention the outsourcing deals. On the IT side, those are only possible due to the Internet. No internet, no tech support from Banglalore , no coders in Mumbai.
If you have any ideas why any of the candidates can deal with the economy as it exists now, let's hear 'em.
-
Quit arguing with trolls
why do you guys do it?
do you really expect SWM to say anything you agree with? or what about ljwalker?
Listen up dems...quit it. Quit being baited.
The truth is the VAST majority of us (not the posers or trolls) have SAID we will gladly vote for the democratic nominee.
National poll bear this out with 72%+ of Hillary supporters and 89%+ of Obama supporters saying such.
Don't let the trolls create sense of divisiveness. Even our own candidates are paying clean for now - understanding that it ISNT the prolonged race that creates the problem its the nastiness.
Don't bite. Ignore it. Its easy. They go away with you don't take the bait.
-
Sorry SWM I dont argue with trolls
see above
-
Uncle Fester/aka Manos/aka Madame Faunterly/aka tom Payne, chilhiab, etc etc.
So good to hear from you Shawn. You must have missed out on the stock market collapse in early 2000's due to the Fed not cooling the market in the late 90s to reduce the asset inflation.
You're right. I DID miss out on it. So did Dow. Maybe you meant the crash of 97, about 3 years before Bill sealed up the nomination. Then again maybe you meant the stock market anemicism after 12 years of Reagan/Bush that really didn't pick up until Clinton's budget and economic policy had been in effect a couple of years. (After all, it wasn't EASY to close those deficits and make your Republican friends shell up their first tax dollar in almost 12 years).
Then again maybe you don't know what in the hell you're talking about. That's where my money is.
Hell, when Bill left office the stock market was over 10,000 - well above the approximate 6500 he inherited.
You know, Unc, the longer you spew and trash the Clinton's with your psuedo-economic twaddle the more you sound like a frickin Republican...
and by the way, you forgot to call me a klansman again. ;-)
-
"So he surrounded himself with experienced friendly Republicans like Cheney and Powell"
And Bush was successful, for the REPUBLICANS. No, it didn't work out so well for the rest of us.
The idea is that Obama would have DEMOCRATIC advisors. So he would be successful for the DEMOCRATS.
-
"Not racist, just scared"
... some union members from northeastern Pennsylvania told me matter-of-factly that they have friends and neighbors who won't vote for Obama because he's black.
"I don't think people are racist. I just think they're scared," said Antoinette Yachta, a steelworker from Throop, Pa., near Scranton.
Oh, great. "I'm not racist, I'm just scared of the black guy."
Pennsylvania is full of working class people who've had it tough. But being working class and having it tough doesn't excuse that kind of thinking.
As Mike Madden points out, of course, that's hardly Clinton's fault. But she — and all Democratic leaders — have a choice to make about whether they exploit and cultivate sentiments like that or use the opportunity they have to rework the calculus of American identity.
So far Clinton has been passing one of the critical tests of her own candidacy, which is whether she can keep her negative campaigning under control. But there's more to enlightened political campaigning (if such a thing is even possible) than simply not letting the negative aspects get out of hand.
Any successful Democratic candidate will have to find a way to tap the positive aspirations of the electorate, or they will lose in November. If Clinton loses sight of that, the whole party will suffer.
-
@John Anderson - you are making my point for me.
And Bush was successful, for the REPUBLICANS. No, it didn't work out so well for the rest of us
My point exactly. I'm not seeing how Obama surrounding himself with Resko, Axelrod, etc, is going to be any different - at least if his history is anything to go by.
-
he's surrounding himself with Bill Richardson
who seems to know a losing horse when he sees one.
-
Jason Wolfe from Newhall on thinking things out
Rocky doesn't quit, but Rocky loses in a split decision to a black man. The black man is later killed. I mean seriously. Did she even think that analogy out?
No, she probably didn't, and in that she's smarter than you. And Wonkette (which, let's be honest, isn't all that hard).
Hillary Clinton isn't campaigning among netheads or cinephiles. She's campaigning among people for whom the character of Rocky Balboa is a symbol of a certain kind of stick-to-it heroism. That symbology works on an emotional level, not a cerebral one.
That's why Obama's retort — "let's remember that Rocky is just a movie character" or words to that effect — is kind of tin-eared. He's a quick study, but he's still working on his game. Having to go up against the likes of Clinton as a prerequisite for nomination is probably the single best thing that could have happened to his campaign.
... a benefit which, to be clear, is entirely symmetric.
-
@John Anderson : Re Richardson
I can't pretend to know Richardson's reasoning, probably promised some cabinet position or the other or implied VP. but I think it's a stretch to overstate Richardson's accomplishments. He performed adequately. No stellarly. But adequately as Sec. Energy. And he's been a pisspoor Governor of NM - granted he's had Bush's economy to contend with.
Anyway, my guess is what Richardson did was defy the wishes of the hispanic voters in his own state and that it's going to cost him his office in Santa Fe next election after Obama goes down as big as I think he's going to.
-
@Amity
Hillary Clinton isn't campaigning among netheads or cinephiles. She's campaigning among people for whom the character of Rocky Balboa is a symbol of a certain kind of stick-to-it heroism. That symbology works on an emotional level, not a cerebral one
Oh? Was there something "celebral" about logging into six different accounts or so to spew off psuedo-economic twaddle without citations, to engage in vulgarity (really classy stuff like calling people "Kotex", and that's the stuff I'd even repeat too), endorsing reverse racism, and elementary reverse psychology.
The people in the heartland are smarter than you think. They know Obama is a fraud who only appeals to biggots and snobby elitist liberals.