John Kerry: Nice wheels



[email protected] (JP) wrote:

>Mark Hickey <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>> "Doug" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >Hostile Press? You really do have your head up your ass. The press was
>> >inexplicably gushing abut the so-called "press conference," despite Shrub's
>> >incoherency, and his inability to provide a single non-evasive answer to any
>> >of the questions posed. The fact is that the bar is set so low for this
>> >jerk that so long as he doesn't fall on his face drunk, his performance is
>> >given a passing grade.
>>
>> If you REALLY think the networks are reporting in a balanced manner,
>> they have succeeded admirably in your case. The more you know about
>> the issues, the more blatantly obvious their bias is. Their "slant"
>> is the main thing that's driving people away from them to alternative
>> sources like Fox, even though there are no "personalities" among the
>> newscasters.
>
>It's pretty well documented that Fox, which can in no way be called an
>alternative source since it is the largest cable news network, is
>attractive primarily to conservative viewers. It is a comfortable
>place for them where they are unlikely to find any challenge to their
>viewpoints.

You should watch it sometime. There are a couple op-ed shows that
have conservative leanings, but they have a lot of VERY liberal folks
as well (Geraldo for example). They also make sure to give both sides
of the issue the chance to state their case - a very positive thing.
The reason so many people are flocking away from the other news
sources (networks, MSNBC, CNN) isn't because they love a conservative
bias, but because they recognize the liberal bias elsewhere.

>There is no reason to think that the media personalities that present
>news and its analysis to the general public are unbiased. They work
>for huge conglomerates that benefit from GOP policies, and the people
>themselves are extremely wealthy by most standards and are the main
>beneficiaries of the Bush taxcuts. I find it amazing the degree to
>which they will go to kiss Bush's ass. How humiliating for them: the
>right wing is going to continue to trash them anyway because it is an
>effective way of countering *everything* negative that is reported
>about Bush; anyone with any knowledge of the issues and this shallow,
>gutless reporting knows what a bunch of whores they are; and, of
>course, anyone with a progressive viewpoint knows that their reporting
>is lazy and frequently scripted by the right simply because it is
>easier than thinking for themselves (which might annoy the Bush
>administration, and if you annoy them and they refuse to talk to you
>anymore, then you won't be able to do your job and you'll have to sell
>that $2million Georgetown townhouse).

Explain Howard Stern.

>I recommend http://www.dailyhowler.com for a daily critique of the
>lastest whorishness of the media. Bob Sommerby rips 'em a new one with
>specific analysis of why one pundit or the other has failed to live up
>to what most of us would expect from a free press. He is particularly
>pointed WRT the New York Times.

Haven't seen that one. I may have to check it out.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame
 
Keith Willoughby wrote:

> Mark Hickey wrote:
>
>> Only now the networks don't have the same kind of stranglehold on the
>> flow of information, so it's not such a secret that ALL the economic
>> indicators are roaring back
>
> Consumer confidence isn't.

And industrial output was down in March, contrary to expectations.

--
Keith Willoughby http://flat222.org/keith/
Freedom is slavery
 
"Mark Hickey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>

Snipped a bunch of stuff that's getting really old. Man, even I, the master
of obsession, have decided that there's no arguing with you. I seriously
have the feeling that if Bush came out and said that he knew about and let
9/11 happen so he could start a Holy War against the Muslims you would still
support him.

Greg
 
G.T. wrote:
> "Mark Hickey" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:q801809abu40-
> [email protected]ews:q801809abu400720o9k88mcmpoc1kauq8q-
> @4ax.com...
> >
> Snipped a bunch of stuff that's getting really old. Man, even I, the
> master of obsession, have decided that there's no arguing with you. I
> seriously have the feeling that if Bush came out and said that he knew
> about and let
> 9/11 happen so he could start a Holy War against the Muslims you would
> still support him.
> Greg





He's not that far off the right. It's just that the majority on this
forum are ardent liberals so the two ideologies clash quite hard. He has
a take, and although unpopular, is standing by what he believes is
right. Not too much different from you.



--
 
"G.T." <[email protected]> wrote:

>"Mark Hickey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>
>Snipped a bunch of stuff that's getting really old. Man, even I, the master
>of obsession, have decided that there's no arguing with you. I seriously
>have the feeling that if Bush came out and said that he knew about and let
>9/11 happen so he could start a Holy War against the Muslims you would still
>support him.

I hope that last statement is hyperbole... I think you know me (via
about a million other off-topic exchanges) ;-) a little better than
that.

I'm no big fan of war, and I think Bush has made some mistakes.
Still, I am pretty well aligned with his reason for going to war in
Afghanistand and Iraq, and share his vision for the future (all
opinions I held before his election, BTW).

Still, you bring up a good point - there is VERY strong correlation
between party affiliation and opinion on the Iraq war. I'll go so far
as to suggest that it's going to be hard for anyone who has a seething
hatred for the very air our president breathes to be objective about
his policies.

And mainly I have spent (too much) time just trying to dispell the
mythology that's been created around the situation (such as GWB was
alone in thinking that Iraq possessed WMD and was a threat, that
UNMOVIC didn't think Iraq had WMD, etc.). It's kind of like the
"steel frames go soft" thing, but with a lot more evidence to the
contrary. And yeah, it is getting old... but hey, so am I!

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame
 
Keith Willoughby <[email protected]> wrote:

>Keith Willoughby wrote:
>
>> Mark Hickey wrote:
>>
>>> Only now the networks don't have the same kind of stranglehold on the
>>> flow of information, so it's not such a secret that ALL the economic
>>> indicators are roaring back
>>
>> Consumer confidence isn't.

And the "drop" was from an upwardly revised 88.5 to a March level of
88.3. If they hadn't revised February, it would have been an
increase.

>And industrial output was down in March, contrary to expectations.

You know that single month points don't make a trend.

I could point at the "largest increase in housing starts in over a
year" as very significant, but it's more a function of weather.
Overall, consumer confidence and industrial output are both heading
north.

Bottom line, it's impossible to objectively report on overall economic
trends in anything but positive terms... though somehow that's not the
"feeling" that's being propagated by most of the media (gee, wonder
why?).

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame
 
Tom Sherman <[email protected]> wrote:

>Mark Hickey wrote:
>> ...
>> Explain Howard Stern....
>
>Some people find a middle age man acting like he is still in a high
>school locker room amusing?

That's not how I meant the question, but I have to admit you pretty
much hit the other interpretation on the head.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame
 
I have a Blackburn full frame on my tourer, it works great. On both
tires and dogs...

- -

"May you have the wind at your back.
And a really low gear for the hills!"

Chris Zacho ~ "Your Friendly Neighborhood Wheelman"

Chris'Z Corner
http://www.geocities.com/czcorner
 
Mark Hickey wrote:

> Keith Willoughby <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Keith Willoughby wrote:
>>
>>> Mark Hickey wrote:
>>>
>>>> Only now the networks don't have the same kind of stranglehold on the
>>>> flow of information, so it's not such a secret that ALL the economic
>>>> indicators are roaring back
>>>
>>> Consumer confidence isn't.
>
> And the "drop" was from an upwardly revised 88.5 to a March level of
> 88.3. If they hadn't revised February, it would have been an
> increase.

Would you agree that it isn't "roaring back"?

>>And industrial output was down in March, contrary to expectations.
>
> You know that single month points don't make a trend.

I didn't claim they did. You, however, claimed that "ALL the economic
indicators are roaring back". You were wrong.

--
Keith Willoughby http://flat222.org/keith/
Suddenly, it's Sooty
 
Keith Willoughby <[email protected]> wrote:

>Mark Hickey wrote:
>
>> Keith Willoughby <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>Keith Willoughby wrote:
>>>
>>>> Mark Hickey wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Only now the networks don't have the same kind of stranglehold on the
>>>>> flow of information, so it's not such a secret that ALL the economic
>>>>> indicators are roaring back
>>>>
>>>> Consumer confidence isn't.
>>
>> And the "drop" was from an upwardly revised 88.5 to a March level of
>> 88.3. If they hadn't revised February, it would have been an
>> increase.
>
>Would you agree that it isn't "roaring back"?

Consumer confidence was measured at 61.4 a year ago in March. I'd say
that an increase to 88.3 is about as close to "roaring back" as you're
likely to get.

>>>And industrial output was down in March, contrary to expectations.
>>
>> You know that single month points don't make a trend.
>
>I didn't claim they did. You, however, claimed that "ALL the economic
>indicators are roaring back". You were wrong.

I believe that a 44% increase in CC in a year makes my point. Trying
to counter that with a 0.2 point decrease in a single month isn't
going to change the big picture at all.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame
 
Mark Hickey wrote:
> Keith Willoughby <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> You know that single month points don't make a trend.
>>
>> I didn't claim they did. You, however, claimed that "ALL the economic
>> indicators are roaring back". You were wrong.
>
> I believe that a 44% increase in CC in a year makes my point. Trying
> to counter that with a 0.2 point decrease in a single month isn't
> going to change the big picture at all.

The big picture:
http://www.market-harmonics.com/free-charts/sentiment/consumer_confidence.htm
 
Mark Hickey <[email protected]> writes:

> Consumer confidence was measured at 61.4 a year ago in March. I'd
> say that an increase to 88.3 is about as close to "roaring back" as
> you're likely to get.

The economy will be "roaring back" only when it's a recovery for
everyone not just W.'s cronies. It ain't there yet. Of course, the
economy won't be what it could have been thanks to the burden of
something like an 8 trillion dollar increase in the deficit in the
past 3 1/2 years. God help us if W. gets another four years.
 
Tim McNamara <[email protected]> wrote:
> ...the
> economy won't be what it could have been thanks to the burden of
> something like an 8 trillion dollar increase in the deficit in the
> past 3 1/2 years.

"something like?" It's bad enough as it is. Where lies the need to
exaggerate?

> God help us if W. gets another four years.

Let's not bring religion into this. George talks about his god all
the time. Why do you need to "be like George" and do it too?

I just am not sure who it is going to be: Moron A, or Moron B.
 
Tim McNamara <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Mark Hickey <[email protected]> writes:
>
> > Consumer confidence was measured at 61.4 a year ago in March. I'd
> > say that an increase to 88.3 is about as close to "roaring back" as
> > you're likely to get.
>
> The economy will be "roaring back" only when it's a recovery for
> everyone not just W.'s cronies. It ain't there yet. Of course, the
> economy won't be what it could have been thanks to the burden of
> something like an 8 trillion dollar increase in the deficit in the
> past 3 1/2 years. God help us if W. gets another four years.

Paul Krugman did a pretty good job of putting one good month of job
numbers in perspective: "During Bill Clinton's eight years in office,
the economy added 236,000 jobs per month. But that's just an average:
a graph of monthly changes looks like an electrocardiogram. There were
23 months with 300,000 or more new jobs; in March 2000, the economy
added 493,000 jobs. This tells us not to make too much of one month's
data; payroll numbers are, as economists say, noisy. It also tells us
that by past standards, March 2004 was nothing special."

The article is called "One Good Month" and is reprinted at:

http://www.pkarchive.org/

The jobs that were created were temporary, and at least a quarter of
them were in retail and hospitality industries. There was no job
growth at all in the IT sector.

My personal belief is that there are several variables at work now
that will quickly suck the life out of this so-called recovery. There
has been no significant job growth so far, and no salary growth.
Consumer spending has been financed almost entirely by adding debt,
which can only continue so far. Rising interest rates are going to put
a crimp in that economic fuel line. The huge deficit causes an upward
pressure on interest rates and there are indicators that inflation is
picking up as well which will probably force the Fed to act to raise
rates despite the unimpressive recovery. Furthermore, I have never
seen anything good come from high energy prices. I am not an
economist, but my impression is that high energy prices choke the
economy about as well as raising interest rates (there is some
research to support this). High prices have a broad inflationary
impact- first are the direct costs of fuel, but then the the secondary
costs start to permeate the entire economy, raising prices and
suppressing demand.

This economy is going nowhere.

JP
 
Gwhite wrote:
> Tim McNamara <[email protected]> wrote:
> > ...the economy won't be what it could have been thanks to the burden
> > of something like an 8 trillion dollar increase in the deficit in the
> > past 3 1/2 years.
> "something like?" It's bad enough as it is. Where lies the need to
> exaggerate?
> > God help us if W. gets another four years.
> Let's not bring religion into this. George talks about his god all the
> time. Why do you need to "be like George" and do it too?
> I just am not sure who it is going to be: Moron A, or Moron
> B.





Or perhaps Moron C.

--
Tom Sherman – Quad Cities (Illinois Side)



--
 
BaCardi wrote:

> Or perhaps Moron C.
>
> --
> [Not] Tom Sherman ?Quad Cities (Illinois Side)

Or Moron D who can not use his/her/its own name, but uses someone else’s
signature instead.

--
Tom Sherman – A real person, not an alcoholic beverage
 
[email protected] (JP) wrote:

>Paul Krugman did a pretty good job of putting one good month of job
>numbers in perspective: "During Bill Clinton's eight years in office,
>the economy added 236,000 jobs per month. But that's just an average:
>a graph of monthly changes looks like an electrocardiogram. There were
>23 months with 300,000 or more new jobs; in March 2000, the economy
>added 493,000 jobs. This tells us not to make too much of one month's
>data; payroll numbers are, as economists say, noisy. It also tells us
>that by past standards, March 2004 was nothing special."

The unemployment rate is 5.7%, which is better than the average for
any of the last three (or is it four?) decades. It's also the same
number that Clinton (rightfully) bragged about during his reelection
campaign. There have been approximately 800,000 jobs added since
August - still not as fast as anyone would like, but job growth is a
lagging indicator. Jobs go away after the economy starts down, and
come back after it's heading back up.

>My personal belief is that there are several variables at work now
>that will quickly suck the life out of this so-called recovery.

The really scary thing is, there are a lot of people out there who are
so partisan that they HOPE the economic recovery stalls. Boggles the
mind.

> Furthermore, I have never
>seen anything good come from high energy prices.

It does kind of throw water in the face of the "Bush is in bed with
big oil" theory though, doesn't it?

> I am not an
>economist, but my impression is that high energy prices choke the
>economy about as well as raising interest rates (there is some
>research to support this). High prices have a broad inflationary
>impact- first are the direct costs of fuel, but then the the secondary
>costs start to permeate the entire economy, raising prices and
>suppressing demand.

I agree that high energy costs don't help the recovery at all.
Hopefully it will stabilize soon.

>This economy is going nowhere.

I think you've got to be living in an alternate universe to actually
believe that though - that much cognitive dissonance in the face of
the actual statistics must hurt.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame
 
Mark Hickey <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> [email protected] (JP) wrote:
>
> >Paul Krugman did a pretty good job of putting one good month of job
> >numbers in perspective: "During Bill Clinton's eight years in office,
> >the economy added 236,000 jobs per month. But that's just an average:
> >a graph of monthly changes looks like an electrocardiogram. There were
> >23 months with 300,000 or more new jobs; in March 2000, the economy
> >added 493,000 jobs. This tells us not to make too much of one month's
> >data; payroll numbers are, as economists say, noisy. It also tells us
> >that by past standards, March 2004 was nothing special."
>
> The unemployment rate is 5.7%, which is better than the average for
> any of the last three (or is it four?) decades. It's also the same
> number that Clinton (rightfully) bragged about during his reelection
> campaign. There have been approximately 800,000 jobs added since
> August - still not as fast as anyone would like, but job growth is a
> lagging indicator. Jobs go away after the economy starts down, and
> come back after it's heading back up.

When you consider the long-term unemployed, those who have given up
looking for work, the rate is more like 7.1%. But go to some place
like Ohio; they don't need you or me quoting a bunch of statistics-
they know what the reality is.

> >My personal belief is that there are several variables at work now
> >that will quickly suck the life out of this so-called recovery.
>
> The really scary thing is, there are a lot of people out there who are
> so partisan that they HOPE the economic recovery stalls. Boggles the
> mind.

The recovery *is* stalled. What I *hope* is that Americans don't fall
for ******** story that one month of job creation represents any kind
of significant recovery.

> > Furthermore, I have never
> >seen anything good come from high energy prices.
>
> It does kind of throw water in the face of the "Bush is in bed with
> big oil" theory though, doesn't it?

In what way? Oil prices are at their highest level in many years.

> > I am not an
> >economist, but my impression is that high energy prices choke the
> >economy about as well as raising interest rates (there is some
> >research to support this). High prices have a broad inflationary
> >impact- first are the direct costs of fuel, but then the the secondary
> >costs start to permeate the entire economy, raising prices and
> >suppressing demand.
>
> I agree that high energy costs don't help the recovery at all.
> Hopefully it will stabilize soon.

Stabilization is not enough. Prices have to go down or we are screwed.

> >This economy is going nowhere.
>
> I think you've got to be living in an alternate universe to actually
> believe that though - that much cognitive dissonance in the face of
> the actual statistics must hurt.

What hurts is if you are an unemployed tech worker looking for a job.

It's a prediction. I gave a brief analysis of current conditions- high
energy prices, huge federal deficit, no wage growth, no job growth-
that I think present an environment very unfavorable to sustained
economic growth. Those are facts. You rattle off one supposedly good
month of crummy (meaning the jobs are crummy) job growth and you claim
everything's peachy. The US economic conditions are *bad*.

JP
 
Mark Hickey <[email protected]> writes:

> The really scary thing is, there are a lot of people out there who
> are so partisan that they HOPE the economic recovery stalls.
> Boggles the mind.

It does indeed. And they live on both side of the aisle,
unfortunately.

>> Furthermore, I have never seen anything good come from high energy
>>prices.
>
> It does kind of throw water in the face of the "Bush is in bed with
> big oil" theory though, doesn't it?

No. Why would it? High energy prices benefit the Bush family very
directly, as well as all their friends at the country club. At the
expense of guys like me who work in two locations a day, five days a
week.

>>This economy is going nowhere.
>
> I think you've got to be living in an alternate universe to actually
> believe that though - that much cognitive dissonance in the face of
> the actual statistics must hurt.

There are ied, damned lies and statistics. The Bush Administration
is thoroughly devoted to all of them, especially lies of the second
kind (in which you tell the truth in such a way as to be misleading).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

T
Re: John Kerry: Nice wheels
Replies
1
Views
751
Cycling Equipment
Ted Bennett
T
T
Re: John Kerry: Nice wheels
Replies
0
Views
710
Cycling Equipment
Tom Paterson
T
Q
Re: John Kerry: Nice wheels
Replies
6
Views
813
Cycling Equipment
Tom Paterson
T
D
John Kerry: Nice wheels
Replies
414
Views
13K
Cycling Equipment
Jp
J
M
John Kerry's $8,000 bike
Replies
105
Views
3K
Cycling Equipment
Richard Chan
R
Top Bottom Back