Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: rich4eagle who wrote (277205)	7/17/2002 10:55:35 PM
From: Dan B.	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

For all you've just said about corporate American expense accounts, it is still difficult to comprehend your point. I just said large business expenses can bring bankruptcy? That is a relevant point, I would think. Re: "The numbers are the numbers you can distort them any way you wish. I posted the final tally, you choose to ignore the end results and pull intermediate data to justify failure in the great success." Intermediate data? Justify failure? Huh? I most certainly Did NOT try to justify failure, and it is difficult to call what happened to the Naz at the end of Clinton's time any kind of success. Sorry, but first of all, obviously any number you bring for Bush at this point in his term is indeed intermediate data offered by YOU(fair is fair, no?). Never-the-less, it was I who began with the point that the fall began prior to Bush. You tried to refute THAT point by offering numbers that excluded what happened at the end of Clintons watch. That, is hilarious, and you may not know it, but all fair minded people simply have to laugh at you for not conceding the simple point, when the reality of a fall from 5000 to 2700 prior to BUSH, backs me up without distorting anything what-so-ever. If you are so sure(as you seem to be) that the past has no bearing on current conditions, then what the hades happened during Clinton's once current conditions, to take the NAZ down so far? Did he goof up? Did he make all the G.W.B.-like mistakes you envision now, some different ones, or what? I must add, that you call me a fool for ignoring the "results of the past 18 months," but in fact I would do no such thing. The Nasdaq fell from 2700 to 1300 something, and Bush has been President during that time, no one else. There, are you happy? I would imagine so, however, if I believe that the cause of a 2700 NAZ falling to 1300 NAZ is the much the same as the cause of the immediately prior NAZ fall from 5000 to 2700 under Clinton, it is hardly correct to characterize my opinion as "haphazard," IMHO. Reversal is the order of the day, when accusations of "blind Bias" are brought by you. Freedom Works, Dan B