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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (12630)	10/17/2003 12:06:50 AM
From: Dan B.	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 794032

Ok. I still think you are overlooking the effect of the huge fall which couldn't possibly have been a result of GWB, but that's just my idea of an honest observation(which I do think will sell and serve to answer your points when the time comes. I could be wrong). Dan B

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (12630)	10/17/2003 12:16:02 AM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 794032

"I blame Bush for his relentless warmongering starting in the post 911 period...." Could you link me to a credible source where I could read about the 2+ years of "relentless warmongering" you keep attributing to Prez Bush? I'll state the obvious. Afghanistan & Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with Bush & any form of warmongering. Forcing the terrorists out of Afghanistan was a war that Al Qaeda began on 9/11. The war in Iraq can be debated endlessly, but I'll stick to what is known. Iraq invaded Kuwait & when Iraq capitulated in the Gulf War, they agreed to a number of conditions as part of the cease fire. The UN attempted to enforce the agreement with 18 UN Resolutions over 12 years. Iraq relentlessly refused to comply & the regime was removed by a coalition of the willing more than a decade later. Even if you consider both of these incidents to be part of this alleged "relentless warmongering", please fill me in on the balance of this 2+ years that I can find any compelling evidence of any warmongering whatsoever.

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (12630)	10/17/2003 12:25:17 AM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 794032

But Liz, the bust started in 2000 before Bush was even elected. All those new IPOs who had no business being in business except to sell shares went poof! in 2001. Then their employees got fired, their computers and routers got sold at fire-sale prices, so that AT&T and Cisco had the nightmare experience of competing against their own new equipment at 70% off, and IT spending got slashed across the board as investors in all markets discounted hope and started demanding actual profits again - during the boom, all you needed was growth. The economy affects the market, the market affects the economy.

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (12630)	10/17/2003 12:37:50 AM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 794032

The bubble burst prior to the election. It was a huge bubble & they all end horribly for the economy - that is historical fact. Then 9/11 happened. That had a huge immediate effect on the economy just in the cost of the destruction at ground zero & in DC, perhaps exceeding a billion dollars. Now factor in the effect on the economy globally when everyone hunkered down. Business & pleasure travel fell off a cliff. Tourism came to a complete standstill. Airlines flew nearly empty. Fear gripped the globe & spending dried up in almost every sector. The cost to the US economy from the overall effects of 9/11 alone had to eclipse a trillion dollars. And 9/11 had nothing to do with the fall out of the bursting bubble. Yet somehow you place most of the blame with the Bush Administration. How so?