Actually, I have. Nukes differ from machine guns in a key aspect - they are risky to the passerby when just sitting on a shelf. The materials are radioactive, and therefore passively harmful and risky, even if the bomb isn't triggered. So, unlike a machine gun or hand grenade, someone who is simply sitting next to a nuke can be harmed. This gives society a legitimate interest in regulating nukes that does not exist for any firearm, even fully automatic ones.

Betcha didn't think I could defend that, huh? You don't know me very well.

I would like to point out for you Bushies, GW has folded on the assault rifle ban renewal, and is therefore no different then Kerry on this issue.

SH, at this point he is different. Kerry voted for the original bill.

He may be no different in the support. The vote hasn't come yet, and neither has the signing.

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?ID=138 for more info.

Aunty M, Enron gave lots of money to Clinton and gore. In fact Enron gave money to almost everyone who was running for office in most states. They were the biggest supporter of gray davis and the democratic party in California just before the energy crisis. Also Enron hit the news during bush’s first term but every thing that they are being prosecuted for happened during Clinton’s terms.

To who every said it. (I forgot who) the purpose of owning firearms in America is not hunting. Its not even self defense, its to protect the citizens from their own government. Who were the first three countries to past national weapons bans... anyone.... anyone... Hitler Stalin and moa (spelled wrong). or Germany, the soviet union and the peoples republic of china.
The U.K and the land down under have both suffered a hugh increase in violent crimes and thief since passing their gun control bills. Tony Blair admitted in an interview that passing that law was probably a bad idea.

As for being rich, I wish and hope to some day be rich. I think that you and I stand a better chance of becoming rich under a government that taxes you and me less. I do not believe this b.s. About only the rich getting a tax cut. Everyone got a tax cut last time even people who did not pay taxes. Kerry (and Hillary) want to raised taxes on the rich but when you read their tax proposal you find out that above 35 thousand is “rich” well let me tell you that is not rich. You will not be starving but you are not rich.
Stl hd (I think) asked me how I could support bush. Easy. He’s defeating our enemies and creating a atmosphere were the economy can continue to build and thrive. Bill Clinton raised taxes and damaged the economy long before 911. Now Kerry wants to do the same so he can finance all of his social projects. I will take a man who remembers what he said last week and does not change his mind all the time. I think bush is wrong on a lot of subjects but not on the two most important ones. I disagree with bush on gay marriage (except by nazis), on abortion, stem cells and illegal aliens (get a bus). But these do not mean as mush to me as the first two, defense and economy. P.s. sorry I post and run once a day but I am busy lately.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by superfly:


It just goes to show how the Republican party is pulling the wool over so many uninformed or ignorant americans eyes.

Peace
Superfly


------------------------------------------------------------


Are you French or just somehow related to goharley?


If you put the "Peace" pipe down for awhile you'ld realize there's alot of "uninformed or ignorant Americans"out there that support both our troops and their Comander and Chief in what is referred to as the fly-over states. You know--all those places in America where the bourgeois un-washed masses live outside of "intellectually enlightened" cities of Boston, NYC, LA and the Peoples Republic of Seattle.

------------------------------------------------------------

In a previous post Superfly shed some additional light into his intellectual prowess by stating that history would hold GW accoutable for the "BAD ECONOMY."


What "BAD ECONOMY"are you referring to?


Th U.S. economy that has the percentage of Americans who own their own home at an all time high?

The economy GW turned around despite inheiriting a recession and having terrorists shake our financial and travel markets to their core?

The economy that has put the dow back over 10,000?

The economy that has produced all-time historic highs in housing starts?

The economy that has brought the unemployment rate down lower than the average rate of the 90's?

The economy that was bolstered by tax cuts that put more money back in the hands of every American that has a job and pays taxes?

The economy that has all leading indicators suggesting things are getting better daily and
that there is every reason to believe that they're are only going to get even better?


Is that the "BAD ECONOMY" you're referring to?

He hasn't defeated our enemies. Just yesterday, Tom Ridge got on the tube and said that Bin Laden is planning a big one. Instead, we have gone into a country that had nothing to do with the threats we faced, spent a lot of money, killed a lot of people, supposedly to address this threat, and then yesterday, we hear we are still at risk. He killed a bunch of guys we didn't like, supposedly to make us safer. Maybe you feel safer, I don't.

He also hasn't bolstered the economy. We have the largest deficits any country has ever known, and the Bush administration won't even say that spending money we don't have is something that we ought to try to avoid. The stock market is flagging, employment is weak, and our industrial infrastruture is heading overseas rapidly.

I don't say this to tout Kerry, who I'm not sure is much different or better economically. It just bothers me when people tout Bush as being better for the economy when he demonstrably isn't. Bush is better for business owners. Not business, just business owners. If you own a business, Bush is great for you. If you are rich, Bush is great for you. If you are a taxpaying wage earner, are planning to use social security, or are counting on your savings to support you during retirement, well, at the very least, the jury is out.

On tax cuts, we have heard for almost four years now that the tax cuts are stimulating the economy. Well, the stock market is at less than half of what it was when Bush took office, unemployment is still high, we have a net loss of jobs during his term, and American jobs are heading overseas at a record pace. That doesn't sound like the economy is overly strong to me.

Now, you may still wish to vote for Bush, and I respect that. But I have 30 years of business experience, an accounting degree and an economics degree. I and nearly every other economist in this country will tell you that Bush's policies are not growing our economy. His deficits are creating a trainwreck that will happen when we need to retire. And all we hear from him and Cheney is that "deficits don't matter". That's what they thought in Argentina, pre WWII germany, and Brazil. All of whom crashed in hyperinflation due to deficit spending.

Those who do not study history are condemned to repeat it.

he did not tell it like it is scowack did. how can ignore the facts. the market is above 10,000. more americans are employed right know then at anytime in history. bush has done a great job keeping are country going after 911. you do remeber 911 right? 911 is to blame for a economy going to ****. not bush. and yes I dont like the spending, but better to spend it on the military defending us.(no attacks in this country) then on welfare for the lazy and uneducated. bush has spent more money on education then any president in history. and dont tell me that spending money on the mailtary is not worth it. was the spending on ww2 worth it?. was out spending the soviets worth it? yes on both accounts and spending money on home land security is worth it. we are at war and it started a long time before bush. the barracks in sudie, the U.S.S cole, the first time at the world trade center, the embassy in africa, and the last leader we had did nothing. I was in the marines under clinton and it was hard to train with the amount of money that was cut and sit there watching us getting attacked time and time agian with out response. bush at leass has the common sense to make sure we have the supplies we need and the pay we deserve before responding to are enemies.

sorry had to go in the other room and lost my train of thought. hey i like bush for good reasons and you dont so i am voting for bush and you won't, well see who wines and yes i read and study a lot of history. What yoou are saying about bush is the samethings they said about reagon and history has declared ronny the winner.

$INDU (Dow Jones) was 10887 in Jan 2001 on a downward trend it is currently 10171. It was 11497 in Dec 1999.

$COMPX (Nasdaq) was 2772 in Jan 2001 on a downward trend is now 1935. It was 4696 in Feb 2000.

It is easy to see that the economic problems were started by Clinton not Bush. It doesn't take a degree in anything to see what the numbers prove. BTW, the low point was Sept 2002 and has been trending up since that point.

The economy is improving, and the Clinton rececssion is almost over.

jimh thanks for the hard numbers.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by silver hilton:

Well, the stock market is at less than half of what it was when Bush took office, unemployment is still high.... That doesn't sound like the economy is overly strong to me.

I and nearly every other economist in this country will tell you that Bush's policies are not growing our economy.--silver hilton

------------------------------------------------------------


Under the Bush administation the unemployent rate has been brought down
to below the average rate of the 90's.

Interestingly, you also mentioned that the "stock market is at less than half of what it was when Bush took office."--silver hilton

When you posted that assertion on 07/09/04 the Dow closed up 41.66 at 10,213.22.

I'd be curious to know--When was the Dow ever higher than 20,426.44?

------------------------------------------------------------

You also spoke of your business education and your concern for the National dept.

When you studied economics did you learn that in order in to accurately gauge the impact of the current National dept you had to do so by comparing how it relates to the current Gross National Product?

------------------------------------------------------------

Finally, you stated that," I and nearly every other economist in this country will tell you that Bush's policies are not growing our economy."--silver hilton


As someone who follows these things with a little interest--I'm curious, what business journals are you reading?

What would this thread be without at least one condescending ass?

No, as a matter of fact, they didn't teach that little tidbit, because it isn't particularly accurate. The politicians like to use it because it makes ignorant people let them get away with thier irresponsibility.

If you want to be precise, what is relevant is the current deficit, the accumulated deficit, the projected deficits and revenues in the years to come, the inflation rate, tax rates, other budgetary commitments, and the interest rates and economic conditions over the time that is expected to be required to retire the debt. This lets you know what the cost load is for the spending on the overall economic capcity of the nation.

When the current spendthrifts in Washington are downplaying our deficits by saying they are small in relation to the GNP, they conveniently omit to note that interest payments on the accumulated deficit (7 trillion dollars and growing) now exceed 15% of our annual budget. That's about $350 billion dollars. The deficit is about 450 billion, I believe. We almost wouldn't have a deficit, if we hadn't had a deficit in the past.

Irresponsibility accumulates. That $450 billion dollars means that next years interest payments will be about $22 billion higher. The next year, they'll be $22 billion higher yet. There is no money in the budget to retire the debt, so this isn't like a car payment where the loan is retired. It's interest only. 15 cents of every tax dollar of yours goes to pay interest. It's gonna double in about 15 years. This fact is agreed to by Congress, Bush, and Greenspan. I don't know about you, but I kinda wish my tax dollar went to roads, guns, congressional intern's salaries;), rather than to interest on a loan.

As to business journals, Wall Street Journal, Business Week, The Economist, National Review, a bunch of web stuff. I'm ignorant and uneducated. Don't know anything about the stock market either. I'm just a silly trader.

Ooh, ooh, pick me, pick me!!!

Whatever. The Naz closed at 1946, all time high around 4900. The Naz is where I live. The Dow is only a mere 20% below it's high, four years later. Both are currently trending down.

Look, let's not play sneer at each other. I will readily admit it if and when I'm wrong, and I enjoy the debate, but not if anyone is going to get mad. I have facts and data to back up my opinions, and if the data doesn't support them, i'll change my mind. I'll also be courteous as we discuss. If you can't say the same, I think we should stop now.

Uh, I have an Econ degreee from a rather prestigious university as well. You can easily make this statement, but you can easily build a case against it also.

Let's face the facts. Extremely little of what goes on in the Whitehouse dictates what happens in the economy, contrary to popular belief. Aside from bully'in the FED, the US economy basically runs in cycles. I could bore you to death for the next hour about this, but the cliff notes version is jobs, rates, inflation, etc. The pres is basically bent over and takes on the stepchild from whatever the previous administration tried to do, and then does their spin. The fact of the matter is, every 7 to 10 years you are going to have an extreme rally, a solid pull back, and few micro rallies in between. Need proof? Where were you in 73, 81, 90 98, and today?

During these times we had Watergate, Billy beer, the Cowboy (my Fav) and the Cigar,er smoker. Out of all of these rallies, the only one I feel was really affected by the Pres was the Reagan era, (Reaganomics for those keeping score).

This year is similar to the other years in that:

A) Bush took over a crap economy.
B) There isn't a sh!tload to do other than let it run it's course (anybody notice the rate increase last week, right on cue).
C) Who the F cares about the other crap these clowns spew thinking it's what we want to hear as voters.

Saddest part is, the most noble politician in recent times is Arnold. Not saying anything about right or wrong, but his approach sure is refreshing, he can't be bought (time will tell).

How does all of this relate to fishing? You can try to bend it back to the presidency all you want, but the fact of the matter is our wonderful State has ten fold more to do with the current state of fish around here. Our State poilticians could easily correct what we, the sportmen, feel is wrong and the inequalities present, but they haven't. Quick question. When was the last time our state was run by republicans.

Hey Superfly, can you hear me now?

Spout off what you want, but the fishing has gone in the toilet under the watch of the Democrats. Name anything that your golden boy Locke has done to correct it. You can't, and the reason is he has his tongue 2' up the crack of the commercials along with other private interests. Fishing in this area will not be greatly affected until the thinking in this state changes drastically. It really has nothing to do with who the heck is in the whitehouse.

The only question for us sportsman is, who will show up with the answer? Neither party has to date (what's his name (John Carlson?) tried last run but lost), and I haven't seen anything that shows promise out of those running currently.

I could personally give a rip if the person is a Dem or a Rep. I'm looking for a champion for what I believe in. I have a feeling their is a majority with similar thoughts out there, rather close to the center of the partisanship. Problem is, there is no VALID representationship for this way of thinking. Hard to believe that a solid candidate hasn't platformed the center (and no, Nader isn't an option).

Dismount soapbox, grab new drink. That's better now.

Prestigious? I'll give you well known...

I don't see how you can argue with the statement. You're own statement is right on - the president doesn't have much sway over the economy. There isn't a dial he can easily turn to crank things up or down. Bush additionally go handed really crummy cards with the 9/11 disaster.

I don't think there's that much any president can do to grow the economy. It's like a garden. He and Congress can plant some things, water some things, and fertilize, but the weather and seasons have much more effect on what is going to happen.

I don't think Bsh's policies have been necessarily disastrous for the recent economy. They just haven't been particularly stimulative, either. Sure, housing starts are up, because mortgage money is essentially free. But consumer spending is flagging, and the most recent reports are that business to business spending is tailing off. We're in the middle of a flat period.

The problem with the policies is the price tag and the combination of the tax cuts with increasing spending due to the various security issues. This is adding up to a whopping disaster in the 20 year time frame, and all of America is pretending not to hear the bill collector's phone call. Over the next twenty years, we're going to have to make increasingly hard financial choices, because more and more of our tax dollar is going to be going to interest. Add that fact to the increasing age of our workforce and diminishing number of tax payers in relation to the entitlement receivers, and it's a scary picture out there.

So SH let me understand this...are you saying that the reason for the fall of the NASD index from 4900 to 1900 was George Bush? Please make that case again so I can alert the Wall Street Journal.

Even Bush credits Clinton economically:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/bc42.html

William J. Clinton

During the administration of William Jefferson Clinton, the U.S. enjoyed more peace and economic well being than at any time in its history. He was the first Democratic president since Franklin D. Roosevelt to win a second term. He could point to the lowest unemployment rate in modern times, the lowest inflation in 30 years, the highest home ownership in the country's history, dropping crime rates in many places, and reduced welfare roles. He proposed the first balanced budget in decades and achieved a budget surplus. As part of a plan to celebrate the millennium in 2000, Clinton called for a great national initiative to end racial discrimination.

After the failure in his second year of a huge program of health care reform, Clinton shifted emphasis, declaring "the era of big government is over." He sought legislation to upgrade education, to protect jobs of parents who must care for sick children, to restrict handgun sales, and to strengthen environmental rules.

If you read it, it says while he was President. It didn't say due to his policies. There is a difference. It also charitably didn't mention the stock crash of 2000.

What's everyone so puffed up about? Everything is just wonderfull. Who cares that we have a record trade deficit, an exploding national debt, depression level interest rates, record level consumer debt, record level low savings.......ban me, I could go on and on. I couldn't give a s**t who is the next president.

I'm short the SPX and long AU. This trade is so obvious it makes me wonder. Liberal stops in place. Party on. Everything is just perfect.

No, I believe I was offering some evidence that the Bush tax cut magic for the economy is not reflected in the stock markets. Neither is the dividend tax rate cuts, or the other elements of the Bush programs. Bush is touted as being great for the stock market and the economy, when the evidence seems at best equivocal.