John Kerry: Nice wheels



"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
 
Originally posted by G.T.
"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
Click to expand...



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
 
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
 
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
 
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
 
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.
 
Originally posted by Gwhite
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.
Click to expand...



Or perhaps Moron C.

--
Tom Sherman – Quad Cities (Illinois Side)
 
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
 
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
 
Tim McNamara <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> [email protected] (JP) writes:
>
> > Mark Hickey <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:<[email protected]>...
> >> [email protected] (JP) wrote:
>
> >> > 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.
>
> And the Bush family benefits, as do their friends.
>
> >> > 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.
>
> Hello? Prices for oil will continue to trend upwards
> inexorably as the resouce becomes harder to produce,
> harder to transport (the next round of terrorism may well
> be aimed at disrupting oil supplies from the Mideast to
> the U.S.- like shooting ducks in a barrel).
>
> The only long term solution is to reduce the dependence on
> oil from all sources. This would be a huge boost to
> national security overall on many fronts. However, getting
> Americans to give up their frigging SUVs, get off their
> fat asses and walk or ride a bike to a destination more
> than 50 feet away is a hopeless cause.

My point was simply that price stabilization at its current
level will not be enough to prevent choking of this
"recovery".

I agree completely with everything you say, except that I do
not think that oil is anywhere close to becoming a scarce
commodity. Most of the price fluctuations are artificial-
OPEC is a cartel, after all, with the objective of
controlling prices. And Bob Woodward in his new book says
that Bush made a secret deal with the Saudis to jack up
prices so that they could cut prices a few months before the
election to help Bush's chances. Hmmm... I did think that
there was something weird about the last OPEC meeting where
Kuwait wanted to increase production but the Saudis wanted
to cut it. Historically, Saudi Arabia has not been known to
be so hard line on raising prices unless the world economic
situation is a lot more positive than it is right now. I
think there is something fishy going on here, but I don't
know if Woodward has his finger on it exactly. It could be
some kind of win-win situation: OPEC rakes in the profits
for a few months and then lowers prices in time to get Bush
re-elected. Then prices can go back up again, and the Saudis
and the big oil companies that back Bush/Cheney get their
*big* payoff. All the while the average American is too dumb
to see what's going on, except to condemn Kerry for favoring
a $.50/gal gas tax ten years ago (that probably would have
lowered demand enough over the last decade to avoid the
situation we're in now). We are *so* f***ed.

JP
 
[email protected] (JP) wrote:

>Mark Hickey <[email protected]> wrote

>> 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.

Yes, let's not pay any attention to the actual statistics.
Rather, let's find a pocket that has been affected most and
try to extrapolate that to the national level. Heh.

>> 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.

800,000 jobs since August. But why don't you post some
statistical indicators showing the economy is "stalled"?
C'mon, I know you can do
it.

>> 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.

Politically a very negative issue for GWB. You guys are
unbelievable. If the prices go up, it's GWB's fault. If they
go down, it's a conspiracy to help GWB win the election.

>> > 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.

The prices are a problem, but aren't as high (when adjusted
for inflation) as in the '70's.

>> >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.

Again, let's focus on one sub-sub-subsegment and try to
convince the rest of the voters that they're representative
of the entire country.

>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*.

You are ignoring SO much evidence to the contrary, and the
opinion of just about every financial expert to support your
assertion. Heck, even Kerry isn't trying to claim the
economy is bad any more.

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

>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.

I agree with you (and am just as dead-set against it in
either case).

>>> 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.

I think it's pretty clear that high energy prices are
hurting GWB directly right now.

>>>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).

Are you claiming that there is NOT a recovery underway?
C'mon Tim, you're not that gullible.

Mark Hickey Habanero Cycles http://www.habcycles.com Home of
the $695 ti frame
 
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...

...

> >>> 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.
> >
> > Politically a very negative issue for GWB. You guys are
> > unbelievable. If the prices go up, it's GWB's fault. If
> > they go down, it's a conspiracy to help GWB win the
> > election.
>
> It's what Bob Woodward is saying, and I don't think Bob
> Woodward is one of "you guys".

Bob Woodward doesn't care about anything except getting a
"gotcha" to sell his book. (And I include "the truth" as
part of "anything").

--
Remove the ns_ from if replying by e-mail (but keep posts in
the newsgroups if possible).
 
David Kerber <ns_dkerber@ns_ids.net> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] says...
>
> ...
>
> > >>> 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.
> > >
> > > Politically a very negative issue for GWB. You guys
> > > are unbelievable. If the prices go up, it's GWB's
> > > fault. If they go down, it's a conspiracy to help GWB
> > > win the election.
> >
> > It's what Bob Woodward is saying, and I don't think Bob
> > Woodward is one of "you guys".
>
> Bob Woodward doesn't care about anything except getting a
> "gotcha" to sell his book. (And I include "the truth" as
> part of "anything").

If you can't deny the facts, smear the speaker. Respected
journalists are lying profiteers, and trusted cabinet
members that served previous GOP administrations are
disgruntled Democratic attack dogs.
 
In article
<[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...

...

> > > It's what Bob Woodward is saying, and I don't think
> > > Bob Woodward is one of "you guys".
> >
> > Bob Woodward doesn't care about anything except getting
> > a "gotcha" to sell his book. (And I include "the truth"
> > as part of "anything").
>
> If you can't deny the facts, smear the speaker. Respected
> journalists are lying profiteers, and trusted cabinet
> members that served previous GOP administrations are
> disgruntled Democratic attack dogs.

I don't have a major problem with Clark, (though he's also
trying to sell a book), but I have never believed a word
Woodward has had to say, and if he says the same thing as
someone else, then in my eyes it _reduces_ the original
speaker's credibility.

How come these stories only come out from people who are
trying to sell books?

--
Remove the ns_ from if replying by e-mail (but keep posts in
the newsgroups if possible).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

T
Re: John Kerry: Nice wheels
Replies
1
Views
752
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
514
Views
17K
Cycling Equipment
Jonesy
J
M
John Kerry's $8,000 bike
Replies
105
Views
3K
Cycling Equipment
Richard Chan
R
Top Bottom Back