Table On-Topic Summary - 12-Sep-2002
A compilation of this board's financial/economic posts From 41788 to 41861



Post  41788  by  jeffbas       Reply
Knoch, or how about a regime that uses poison gas on its own people? Any government willing to do that has proven to my satisfaction that it would supply weapons at its disposal to terrorists. Thus, it seems to me the issue is whether we wait for a surprise attack at their convenience or try to make sure one does not happen.

I agree with another poster that Bush will tell the UN that either they resume comprehensive, effective inspections immediately or we will make "inspections" unilaterally.


Post  41789  by  Decomposed       OT: Table ON TOPIC SUMMARY Sep 11, 2002
Post  41790  by  clo       OT:SquawkBack Poll: Judging Iraq
Post  41791  by  motordavid       OT: NY Lotto Bizarro:
Post  41792  by  clo       OT:Results SquawkBack Poll: Judging Iraq


Post  41793  by  lkorrow       Reply
Pace, It's hard to figure how anyone in their right mind would not understand the threat the entire world faces from terrorism and fundamentalism in the Middle East. Those countries that chose not to defend freedom and justice and the values of a civilized Society should mark the moment for their lives will change too, it's just a matter of time.





Post  41794  by  lkorrow       Reply
abveldeh, appreciate the translation, it was worth reading. Wish I understood Dutch and a few other languages!

Post  41795  by  maniati       OT: firered: Oh, you'll find LOTS of truth at that


Post  41796  by  lkorrow       Reply
srudek, you might want to give the Dow discussion list on the WSJ site a try too, there's someone there that is versed in the Austrian school . . .



Post  41797  by  Culmus       Reply
Empirical study re. stock options

(FYI, before I lose the link)

Summary:

By John E. Core, Wayne R. Guay and S. P. Kothari

ABSTRACT: In this paper, we derive a measure of diluted EPS that incorporates the economic implications of the dilutive effects of employee stock options. We show that the existing FASB treasury-stock method of accounting for the dilutive effects of outstanding options systematically understates the options' dilutive effect, and thus overstates reported EPS. Using firm-wide data on 731 employee stock option plans, our proposed measure suggests that economic dilution from options is, on average, 100 percent greater than dilution in reported
diluted EPS using the FASB treasury-stock method.

We examine the implications of our analysis for stock price valuation, the price-earnings relation, and the return-earnings relation. We demonstrate analytically that when firms have options outstanding, empirical applications of equity valuation models that use reported per-share earnings as an input (e.g., Ohlson 1995) yield upwardly biased estimates of the market value of common stock. We predict that when the difference between our measure of economic dilution from options and the FASB treasury-stock method dilution from options is greater, the observed return-earnings and price-earnings coefficients will be smaller, and we provide some (albeit weak) empirical support
for this prediction.

https://www.newslettersonline.com/user/user.fas/s=604/fp=3/tp=44/06.627_652.pdf?T=open_summary,468222&P=summary




Post  41798  by  Culmus       Reply
https://www.newslettersonline.com/user/user.fas/s=604/fp=3/tp=44/06.627_652.pdf?T=open_summary,468222&P=summary

Post  41799  by  maniati       OT: The biggest difference between America and the


Post  41800  by  Culmus       Reply
Full emprical study re. stock options (free)

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/delivery.cfm/991013205.pdf?abstractid=183068


Post  41801  by  tinljhtkh       OT: I hate to edit this movie analogy bubble becau


Post  41802  by  pmcw       Reply
Culmus, I think the option issue has been flogged to death. I challenged you on several occasions to provide a formula showing how options could be shown as an expense to the corporation. I guess since you never responded to these challenges you believe like maniati and I that they are an expense to the shareholder and not an expense to the corporation.

Actually, if you are dead set on showing them as an expense, there is a way they can be shown as such without double counting. I was almost hoping you would post this, but I've held back because I think it convolutes the route to the same result more than it adds transparency. However, maybe seeing it will help you rest. ;o)

Corporation ABC
Current Method
Shares outstanding: 10,000,000
Fully diluted shares: 11,000,000
Total earnings: $10,000,000
Earnings per outstanding share: $1
Earnings per diluted share: $0.91

Corporation ABC
Convoluted Method
Shares outstanding: 10,000,000
Fully diluted shares: 11,000,000
Total earnings: $10,000,000.00
Diluted* earnings: $9,090,090.09
Diluted* earnings per outstanding share: $0.91
Earnings per diluted* share: Not applicable

Since earnings were themselves diluted there is no longer a need to show earnings per outstanding and per diluted share.

Regards, pmcw


Post  41803  by  Tampathom       OT: Text of President's address to U.N.


Post  41804  by  Tampathom       Reply
9/11 shows ###### in U.S. economic armor:

http://www.stratfor.com/

(free link good for today only)




Post  41805  by  Tampathom       Reply
interesting

c h i n k s in armor is a BAD word! God, I hate political correctness!




Post  41806  by  firered1       Reply
With regards to the US using military force in Iraq, I have read many articles and the one I posted was one of them. I believe you must read all opinions on the subject and then objectively analyze each one. There is so much propaganda to weed through. And yes, I believe that article has some truth to it.

The question you ask is the right one - evaluate the threat. Hayes had proposed a "doctrine of constraint" to address such issues. This doctrine would fill the void between preemption and retaliation justifying US actions after satisfying the following tests:
- A past pattern of lawlessness must be established.
- Peaceful means of redress must have been unsuccessful.
- Evidence indicating the likelihood of future breaches of international law must be shown.
- The constraint operation must be reasonably proportionate to the anticipated wrong.
- The constraint operation must be legitimate military (or terrorist) targets.
- Attacks against uninvolved civilians in any form must be strictly forbidden.

Counter proliferation should be founded on more than just "might makes right". The US should ensure it is grounded in International Law. A military attack should be the last resort. There is a wide spectrum of deterrence that needs to be evaluated.

I still am not sure that we should use our "might" against Iraq. We must have a consistent policy against states that may employ Weapons of Mass destruction. I am looking at the US' consistency in policy.
firered1


Post  41807  by  Decomposed       ot: "Bad words"


Post  41808  by  oldCADuser       Reply
I have a stock tip this morning. I know Briguy has mentioned this stock in the past and I was once long in it for about 3 years but got out near the high earlier this year (I got in at $5.00 and out at $41.10). Anyway, the rumor flying around the net this morning is that InVision Technologies (INVN) is a possible takeover target of either Boeing or L3 Communications (their biggest competitor). InVision produces EDS systems (Explosive Detection Systems) and is currently the largest supplier of checked baggage systems in the world. They are the company that the government is buying most of the airport luggage scanners from. The stock is trading as of this moment at around $34.00 and has had a pretty good run up so far this week (it opened on Monday at below $31.00) and the speculation is that it is due to this possible buyout.

Anyway, I just thought that this might be some interest to someone here.

Disclaimer: While I was long at one time, I currently have no position in INVN.

OCU




Post  41809  by  pdowd       Reply
Don't think you are necessarily on the right road because it is a well - beaten path !!!!!!! PD.



Post  41810  by  Culmus       Reply
pmcw

you challenged me on providing a formula several times, right. In one of my last posts I answered by saying that THERE IS NO formula to express something that is wrong to begin with.

That's the point, I do not think that the expense for employee compensation should be (better can be) born by shareholders. These people work for the company and the company has to pay them, not shareholders. Since options cause dilution to the shareholder and have to do with the ownership of the company and not with the income statement it is ridiculous to even suggest they somehow can be manufactured into the income statement. No formula.

You are contradicting yourself in that post when first saying that there is a way to show them as an expense to the corporation and in the next sentence you say that they are an expense to the shareholder. Options can't be both, an expense to the corporation and the shareholder, hence no formula.

The calculation you presented makes no difference at all, it shows dilution which is there for the wrong reason. And mathematics are commutative (correct spelling?), so it makes no difference how you calculate this, the result is the same.

This is like a sports game between the US and the Russians. The US wins and Russian TV reports that the Russian team was the second best while the US team was the second before last:-) That's technically correct but it is not telling the truth.

I'll give it a rest now with the options discussion, they will "expense" anyway and we have differing opinions about it, this happens.

Regards,

Culmus


Post  41811  by  pricegriz       OT: ?


Post  41812  by  pmcw       Reply
culmus, I was just trying to show you there is a convoluted method where by they can be shown as an expense to total net income and still come up with the same earnings per share. As I said, it isn't what I would suggest, but I just wanted to show you it could be done. Heck, I thought it might make you happy.

It appears that you've done an about face from your first post when you said:

"Clearly options are being granted in return for an employee's work and then they clearly must be compensation and hence an expense. An expense that must be deducted from income just as Buffett suggests."

It also appears that you've learned that companies don't just pull a exercise price out of the air when they award options and that CSCO doesn't have 3B options outstanding. Hopefully, you've also come to understand that options, in and of themselves as a method of compensation, is not bad.

Options, like steel used to make guns, are not bad, but they can be improperly used. Doing away with options or creating a unilaterally punitive way to treat options would disfavor small businesses. The problems of corporate malfeasance must be attacked at the roots, not at the leaves.

Regards, pmcw




Post  41813  by  pmcw       Reply
10:57AM InVision rises on takeover speculation (INVN) 34.22 +1.16: -- Update -- We are hearing a rumor that LLL has been in talks to acquire INVN; while we cannot confirm this rumor it is certainly boosting the stock; we also hear that there is huge volume in Oct calls for INVN, indicating that perhaps some traders are taking this speculation seriously.



Post  41814  by  Culmus       Reply
compensation must be expensed (by the company), at the very beginning I hadn't thought about the problem enough and only developed my opinion along the way. I still agree with him, compensation must be expensed. Since that is not possible with options I agree with what sr stated a while back.

Post  41815  by  pmcw       OT: red, Our focus topics on Table are investing a


Post  41816  by  pmcw       Reply
Culmus, Buffett clearly said options should be expensed and you agreed. I appreciate the fact that you've learned that they are expensed to the shareholder, but I don't feel it appropriate to alter Buffett's stance.

I'm guessing that you also now realize that a corporation can't just pull a bargain exercise price out of the sky for options and that it's doubtful that CSCO has penny priced options or that they have 3B options outstanding for insiders and directors.

If these statements are true, the only thing to resolve is if option compensation should be illegal. If you feel this way, please explain where my analogy about how I used options to hire talent in "our" little company is wrong. My position is that equity compensation in and of itself is not wrong, but that it can be misused.

Regards, pmcw


Post  41817  by  pdowd       OT: Ulcers are what you get from mountain climbing


Post  41818  by  daletapley       Reply
Do you know of any way to find out where all of the fiber lines are in your area or across america since it would be nice to see how much more needs to be connected and which line it would be cheapest to extend.

Post  41819  by  oldCADuser       OT: Why Decomp, I've never HEARD such language bef
Post  41820  by  Tampathom       OT: An Arabic lesson
Post  41821  by  pmcw       OT: Tampa, hence my intentional misspelling. I li
Post  41822  by  firered1       OT: pmcw my apologies for not using OT previously.


Post  41823  by  StockmanI7       Reply
Pmcw, IDNX sources

I was clued into that article from the Yahoo! board. I check in there from time to time but the signal to noise ratio is really bad. Silicon Investor is better:

http://www.siliconinvestor.com/stocktalk/subject.gsp?subjectid=1750

I'll keep abreast for the most part and bring the good stuff to this board, mainly the credible sounding rumors and the items that don't make the newswire but that point to definite money in the near/intermediate term (like the INS project does).

Regards,

Stockman17

(Voluntary Disclosure: Position- Long; ST Rating- Buy; LT Rating- Buy)




Post  41824  by  spirare       Reply
WE'LL GO IT ALONE

Text of Bush Speech to U.N.

The Associated Press
Thursday, September 12, 2002; 11:14 AM

A text of President Bush's speech to the United Nations on
Thursday, as released by the White House:

Mr. Secretary-General, Mr. President, distinguished ladies
and gentlemen: We meet one year and one day after a
terrorist attack brought grief to my country, and to the
citizens of many countries. Yesterday, we remembered the
innocent lives taken that terrible morning. Today, we turn to
the urgent duty of protecting other lives, without illusion and
without fear.

We have accomplished much in the last year ? in Afghanistan
and beyond. We have much yet to do ? in Afghanistan and
beyond. Many nations represent here have joined in the fight
against global terror ? and the people of the United States
are grateful.

The United Nations was born in the hope that survived a
world war ? the hope of a world moving toward justice,
escaping old patterns of conflict and fear. The founding
members resolved that the peace of the world must never
again be destroyed by the will and wickedness of any man.
We created a United Nations Security Council, so that ?
unlike the League of Nations ? our deliberations would be
more than talk, and our resolutions would be more than wishes. After generations of deceitful dictators,
broken treaties and squandered lives, we dedicate ourselves to standards of human dignity shared by
all, and to a system of security defended by all.

Today, these standards, and this security, are challenged.

Our commitment to human dignity is challenged by persistent poverty and raging disease. The suffering
is great, and our responsibilities are clear. The United States is joining with the world to supply aid
where it reaches people and lift up lives ... to extend trade and the prosperity it brings ... and to bring
medical care where it is desperately needed.

As a symbol of our commitment to human dignity, the United State will return to UNESCO. This
organization has been reformed and America will participate fully in its mission to advance human rights,
tolerance, and learning.

Our common security is challenged by regional conflicts ? ethnic and religious strife that is ancient but
not inevitable. In the Middle East, there can be no peace for either side without freedom for both sides.
America stands committed to an independent and democratic Palestine, living beside Israel in peace and
security. Like all other people, Palestinians deserve a government that serves their interests and listens
to their voices. My nation will continue to encourage all parties to step up to their responsibilities as we
seek a just and comprehensive settlement to the conflict.

Above all, our principles and our security are challenged today by outlaw groups and regimes that
accept no law of morality and have no limit to their violent ambitions. In the attacks on America a year
ago, we saw the destructive intentions of our enemies. This threat hides within many nations, including
my own. In cells and camps, terrorists are plotting further destruction and building new bases for their
war against civilization. And our greatest fear is that terrorists will find a shortcut to their mad ambitions
when an outlaw regime supplies them with the technologies to kill on a massive scale.

In one place ? in one regime ? we find all these dangers, in their most lethal and aggressive forms ...
exactly the kind of aggressive threat the United Nations was born to confront.

Twelve years ago, Iraq invaded Kuwait without provocation. And the regime's forces were poised to
continue their march to seize other countries and their resources. Had Saddam Hussein been appeased
instead of stopped, he would have endangered the peace and stability of the world. Yet this aggression
was stopped ? by the might of coalition forces, and the will of the United Nations.

To suspend hostilities and to spare himself, Iraq's dictator accepted a series of commitments. The terms
were clear: to him, and to all. And he agreed to prove he is complying with every one of those
obligations.

He has proven instead only his contempt for the United Nations, and for all his pledges. By breaking
every pledge ? be his deceptions, and by his cruelties ? Saddam Hussein has made the case again
himself.

In 1991, Security Council Resolution 688 demanded that the Iraqi regime cease at once the repression
of its own people, including the systematic repression of minorities ? which, the Council said,
"threaten(ed) international peace and security in the region."

This demand goes ignored. Last year, the U.N. Commission on Human rights found that Iraq continues
to commit "extremely grave violations" of human rights and that the regime's repression is "all pervasive."
Tens of thousands of political opponents and ordinary citizens have been subjected to arbitrary arrest
and imprisonment, summary execution, and torture by beating, burning, electric shock, starvation,
mutilation, and rape. Wives are tortured in front of their husbands; children in the presence of their
parents ? all of these horrors concealed from the world by the apparatus of a totalitarian state.

In 1991, the U.N. Security Council, through Resolutions 686 and 687, demanded that Iraq return all
prisoners from Kuwait and other lands. Iraq's regime agreed. It broke its promise. Last year the
Secretary-General's high-level coordinator of this issue reported that Kuwaiti, Saudi, Indian, Syrian,
Lebanese, Iranian, Egyptian, Bahraini, and Omani nationals remain unaccounted for ? more than 600
people. One American pilot is among them.

In 1991, the U.N. Security Council, through Resolution 687, demanded the Iraq renounce all
involvement with terrorism, and permit no terrorist organizations to operate in Iraq. Iraq's regime
agreed. It broke its promise. In violation of Security Council Resolution 1373, Iraq continues to shelter
and support terrorist organization that direct violence against Iran, Israel, and Western governments.
Iraqi dissidents abroad are targeted for murder. In 1993, Iraq attempted to assassinate the Emir of
Kuwait and a former American President. Iraq's government openly praised the attacks of September
11th. And al-Qaida terrorists escaped from Afghanistan are known to be in Iraq.

In 1991, the Iraqi regime agreed to destroy and stop developing all weapons of mass destruction and
long-range missiles, and to prove to the world it has done so by complying with rigorous inspections.
Iraq has broken every aspect of this fundamental pledge.

From 1991 to 1995, the Iraqi regime said it had no biological weapons. After a senior official in its
weapons program defected and exposed this lie, the regime admitted to producing tens of thousands of
liters of anthrax and other deadly biological agents for use with Scud warheads, aerial bombs, and
aircraft spray tanks. U.N. inspectors believe Iraq has produced two to four times the amount of
biological agents it declared, and has failed to account for more than three metric tons of material that
could be used to produce biological weapons. Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that
were used for the production of biological weapons.

United Nations inspections also reveal that Iraq likely maintains stockpiles of VX, mustard, and other
chemical agents, and that the regime is rebuilding and expanding facilities capable of producing chemical
weapons.

And in 1995 ? after four years of deception ? Iraq finally admitted it had a crash nuclear weapons
program prior to the Gulf War. We know now, were it not for that war, the regime in Iraq would likely
have possessed a nuclear weapon no later than 1993.

Today, Iraq continues to withhold important information about its unclear program ? weapons design,
procurement logs, experiment data, an accounting of nuclear materials, and documentation of foreign
assistance. Iraq employs capable nuclear scientists and technicians. It retains physical infrastructure
needed to build a nuclear weapon. Iraq has made several attempts to buy high-strength aluminum tubes
used to enrich uranium for a nuclear weapon. Should Iraq acquire fissile material, it would be able to
build a nuclear weapon within a year. And Iraq's state-controlled media has reported numerous
meetings between Saddam Hussein and his nuclear scientists, leaving little doubt about his continued
appetite for these weapons.

Iraq also possesses a force of Scud-type missiles with ranges beyond the 150 kilometers permitted by
the U.N. Work at testing and production facilities shows that Iraq is building more long-range missiles
that could inflict mass death throughout the region.

In 1990, after Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, the world imposed economic sanctions on Iraq. Those
sanctions were maintained after the war to compel the regime's compliance with Security Council
resolutions. In time, Iraq was allowed to use oil revenues to buy food. Saddam Hussein has subverted
this program, working around the sanctions to buy missile technology and military materials. He blames
the suffering of Iraq's people on the United Nations, even as he uses his oil wealth to build lavish
palaces for himself, and arms his country. By refusing to comply with his own agreements, he bears full
guilt for the hunger and misery of innocent Iraqi citizens.

In 1991, Iraq promised U.N. inspectors immediate and unrestricted access to verify Iraq's commitment
to rid itself of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles. Iraq broke this promise, spending
seven years deceiving, evading and harassing U.N. inspectors before ceasing cooperation entirely. Just
months after the 1991 cease-fire, the Security Council twice renewed its demand that the Iraqi regime
cooperate fully with inspectors, "condemning" Iraq's "serious violations" of its obligations. The Security
Council again renewed that demand in 1994 and twice more in 1996, "deploring" Iraq's "clear
violations" of its obligations. The Security Council renewed its demand three more times in 1997, citing
"flagrant violations" and three more times in 1998, calling Iraq's behavior "totally unacceptable." And in
1999, the demand was renewed yet again.

As we meet today, it has been almost four years since the last U.N. inspectors set foot in Iraq ? four
years for the Iraqi regime to plan and build and test behind a cloak of secrecy.

We know that Saddam Hussein pursued weapons of mass murder even when inspectors were in the
country. Are we to assume that he stopped when they left? The history, the logic and the facts lead to
one conclusion. Saddam Hussein's regime is a grave and gathering danger. To suggest otherwise is to
hope against the evidence. To assume this regime's good faith is to bet the lives of millions and the
peace of the world in a reckless gamble. And this is a risk we must not take.

Delegates to the General Assembly: We have been more than patient. We have tried sanctions. We
have tried the carrot of "oil for food" and the stick of coalition military strikes. But Saddam Hussein has
defied all these efforts and continues to develop weapons of mass destruction. The first time we may be
completely certain he has nuclear weapons is when, God forbid, he uses one. We owe it to all our
citizens to do everything in our power to prevent that day from coming.

The conduct of the Iraqi regime is a threat to the authority of the United Nations, and a threat to peace.
Iraq has answered a decade of U.N. demands with a decade of defiance. All the world now faces a
test and the United Nations a difficult and defining moment. Are Security Council resolutions to be
honored and enforced or cast aside without consequence? Will the United Nations serve the purpose of
its founding or will it be irrelevant?

The United States helped found the United Nations. We want the U.N. to be effective and respected
and successful. We want the resolutions of the world's most important multilateral body to be enforced.
Right now these resolutions are being unilaterally subverted by the Iraqi regime. Our partnership of
nations can meet the test before us, by making clear what we now expect of the Iraqi regime.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately and unconditionally forswear, disclose and remove
or destroy all weapons of mass destruction, long-range missiles and all related material.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately end all support for terrorism and act to suppress it,
as all states are required to do by U.N. Security Council resolutions.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will cease persecution of its civilian population, including Shi'a,
Sunnis, Kurds, Turkomans and others ? again as required by Security Council resolutions.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will release or account for all Gulf War personnel whose fate is still
unknown. It will return the remains of any who are deceased, return stolen property, accept liability for
losses resulting from the invasion of Kuwait, and fully cooperate with international efforts to resolve
these issues ? as required by the Security Council resolutions.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately end all illicit trade outside the oil-for-food program.
It will accept U.N. administration of funds from that program, to ensure that the money is used fairly and
promptly for the benefit of the Iraqi people.

If all these steps are taken, it will signal a new openness and accountability in Iraq. And it could open
the prospect of the United Nations helping to build a government that represents all Iraqis ? a
government based on respect for human rights, economic liberty and internationally supervised
elections.

The United States has no quarrel with the Iraqi people, who have suffered for too long in silent captivity.
Liberty for the Iraqi people is a great moral cause and a great strategic goal. The people of Iraq deserve
it and the security of all nations requires it. Free societies do not intimidate through cruelty and conquest
and open societies do not threaten the world with mass murder. The United States supports political
and economic liberty in a unified Iraq.

We can harbor no illusions. Saddam Hussein attacked Iran in 1980, and Kuwait in 1990. He has fired
ballistic missiles at Iran, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Israel. His regime once ordered the killing of every
person between the ages of 15 and 70 in certain Kurdish villages in Northern Iraq. He has gassed many
Iranians and 40 Iraqi villages.

My nation will work with the U.N. Security Council on a new resolution to meet our common challenge.
If Iraq's regime defies us again, the world must move deliberately and decisively to hold Iraq to account.
The purposes of the United States should not be doubted. The Security Council resolutions will be
enforced ? the just demands of peace and security will be met ? or action will be unavoidable. And a
regime that has lost its legitimacy will also lose its power.

Events can turn in one of two ways.

If we fail to act in the face of danger, the people of Iraq will continue to live in brutal submission. The
regime will have new power to bully, dominate and conquer its neighbors, condemning the Middle East
to more years of bloodshed and fear. The region will remain unstable, with little hope of freedom and
isolated from the progress of our times. With every step the Iraqi regime takes toward gaining and
deploying the most terrible weapons, our own options to confront that regime will narrow. And if an
emboldened regime were to supply these weapons to terrorist allies, then the attacks of September 11th
would be a prelude to far greater horrors.

If we meet our responsibilities, if we overcome this danger, we can arrive at a very different future. The
people of Iraq can shake off their captivity. They can one day join a democratic Afghanistan and a
democratic Palestine, inspiring reforms throughout the Muslim world. These nations can show by their
example that honest government, and respect for women, and the great Islamic tradition of learning can
triumph in the Middle East and beyond. And we will show that the promise of the United Nations can
be fulfilled in our time.

Neither of these outcomes is certain. Both have been set before us. We must choose between a world
of fear and a world of progress. We cannot stand by and do nothing while dangers gather. We must
stand up for our security, and for the permanent rights and hopes of mankind. By heritage and by
choice, the United States of America will make that stand. Delegates to the United Nations, you have
the power to make that stand as well.

Thank you.
2002 The Associated Press

War on Terrorism

http://www.newsmax.com/hottopics/War_on_Terrorism.shtml

The victims demand it.
The families demand it.
America demands it.
Freedom demands it.

Justice.

THIS is what our Nation is responding to.
Please remember that in the difficult times ahead.

http://www.politicsandprotest.com/



Post  41825  by  pmcw       OT: Stock, Thanks! Your inputs are valued. Regar
Post  41826  by  maniati       OT: Yeah, Decomposed, someone should wash your mou
Post  41827  by  srudek       ot: lk, thx for steer to wsj discussion group; I'l


Post  41828  by  lucrorei       Reply
I'd use Silicon Investor but they think they can charge their users to post there so screw em, they are certinaly not worth paying money to.



Post  41829  by  StockmanI7       Reply
Lucrorei: Silicon Investor

I understand your point of view, but you can read there all you want without paying (it sounds like you realize this). Not all threads are of equal quality, but if you find a good one it can be really informative and helpful.

Regards,

Stockman17


Post  41830  by  pacemakernj       OT: Linda, it is amazing. The polls in London are


Post  41831  by  lkorrow       Reply
Pace, they should mail that blackpox post to the 75% against. Anyone reading that has to realize that we need to do a very thorough search of everything in that country, starting at one side and going to the other. Especially surprising that this is out of London, with all these news stories saying the Muslims in Britian are openly stating their intent to take over their country. I guess they don't read the newspapers, what can I say. I am for letting inspectors go in instead of our troops if the U. N. can pull it off, but I suspect we'll start that way and find it inadequate. Would rather not see our troops hurt over there if it can be avoided. We'll see, let's hope for the best.

Post  41832  by  pacemakernj       OT: Spirare, I think PM Blair said it best. "
Post  41833  by  pacemakernj       OT: Linda all that does is buy them time. It is po


Post  41834  by  uponroof       Reply
Bill Gross criticized...
Gross steps out and tells the truth.

``Bill Gross should run his bond portfolio and leave
the rest of us alone,'' said Robert Phillips, who
oversees more than $700 million at Walnut Asset
Management in Philadelphia. ``He is trying to drum up
some bond business or trying to convince people to
switch money out of stocks and into bonds.''

Gross on his web site last week:

``Stocks stink and will continue to do so until
they're priced appropriately,'' he wrote. He said
the chances are slim that stocks can repeat the returns
of 6.7 percent a year of the past 100 years.

Gross on CNBC yesterday:

In an interview on CNBC yesterday, Gross said his
comments aren't a ``forecast.'' The 5000 level is
``where the valuation of the Dow probably rests,'' based
on his analysis of historical dividend yields.

http://quote.bloomberg.com/fgcgi.cgi?ptitle=Top%20Financial%20News&s1=blk&tp=ad_topright_topfin&T=markets_box.ht&s2=ad_right1_topfin&bt=ad_position1_topfin&box=ad_box_all&tag=financial&middle=ad_frame2_topfin&s=APYAS6RYZU29tZSBJ

********

BTW- JPMC is "leading their sector lower" today

http://biz.yahoo.com/cbsm-top/020909/b4338a334f6db8255050e3cffe8fee51_1.html

http://finance.lycos.com/home/stocks/charts.asp?symbols=NYSE%3AJPM&days=30&display=1&study=none

********

POG obviously lowered for 911 is back knocking on 320.
One must admit it seems the trend is up despite strategic bashing. How long can they maintain this strategy?
...Indefinitely? Until the world regains the calmer more
civil undertones of yesteryear? I don't think so.

When that 57% puts their 10-20% into gold (might it be
when Gross's prediction comes to pass?) the POG will be substantially higher, and perhaps beyond control.

Good Luck

Cheers




Post  41835  by  lkorrow       Reply
Pace, I agree, his speech was brilliant. I was thinking of going over to the UN and seeing if I could see GWB and maybe get a picture or autograph, but I figured it would be closed to visitors and I'd miss the whole thing so I watched on TV.

TD, that horses arse. Yes, now that you mention it, it WOULD be for the best if he got in the way! Someone would be sure to punch him out or at least call for his resignation. Why is he the leader anyway? I wonder when the bozo's up for re-election.




Post  41836  by  pmcw       Reply
roof, Gross might be right about the value of the DOW - I've not checked. However, the data he used to substantiate his claim was not factual. Take or leave my comments for what their worth, I don't have the inclination to separate his fact from fiction other than to make my statement as he did his. Regards, pmcw



Post  41837  by  Culmus       Reply
Look,

why don't you stop these silly little games of trying to be right all the time when you clearly are not. And please keep your arrogance in check as well.

Buffett posed questions, he made no statement. Probably the sole intent of these questions was to direct people's attention to what I did as well, make people think about these outsized pay packages.

He asked what options are if not compensation (since compensation ought to be expensed)? That is a legitimate question and I answered by saying that they are a mechanism for insiders to buy stocks at ridiculously cheap prices.

I have said all along that options are costing the shareholder, not the company, that was my primary reason for opposing to "expense options", when will you finally get it? It was you who confused the company and the shareholder all the time. If you insist I can dig up your post at some point (after I have done some much more important work).

I also have acknowledged that options are priced at the money or slightly out of the money some ten posts ago or so. The fact remains that for many companies there still are options outstanding that have strike prices in the pennies. That is a fact that you continue to deny and dismiss! How many times do you need me to confirm that I was wrong about something before your sick ego is satisfied? Contrary to you I have no problem with admitting that I am wrong occasionally.

May I ask why you are starting yet another new "model portfolio"? For the start of the last one you already picked the low after 911, that was after you recommended a ton of stocks at vastly higher prices before that. Now you repeat that game again? Never mind, if you continue that procedure often enough at some point you will be right like that proverbial broken clock. Pitty is just that nobody will have any funds left to follow your "advice". I'm up 10% year-to-date and you? Don't answer, you are probably up 150% or so, I know.

With all your rant you are not trying to divert attention away from something less pleasant for you, are you?


Post  41838  by  pacemakernj       OT: Linda, I believe not for another 4 years. BTW,


Post  41839  by  nacl01       Reply
Linda, that's Senator Bozo, ;-)

and his term expires in 2005 (elections in 2004).

http://www.senate.gov/senators/senators_class_3.html

Anyone want to start a fund for his opponent?

nacl




Post  41840  by  pacemakernj       Reply
Roof, there is a gold conference in NYC on 9/23 and 9/24 at the Marriot Marquis. MO of KRY will be there making a presentation at 10:15 on 9/24. I am planning to attend. All the big shot gold companies will be there making presentations. Just thought you might want to attend. Pace.



Post  41841  by  lkorrow       Reply
Pace, October, wow. Glad they're moving ahead, I wouldn't think we can wait too long. Well I guess Colin Powell has some work to do with the U. N. I don't know how long their process is. To say this resolution should be expidited is an understatement. Well, Clinton (I'm no fan, but he does think immediate alternate energy action is vital) was on Dave Letterman last night. He said if we go into Iraq, we should be done in about a week. Of course sadam could burn the oil fields and subject his own people to cancer causing carcinogens again. Or unleash his own germ warfare in his own country which could spread it to the whole Middle East. I'm still surprised to some extent that the Arabs haven't taken care of their own problem (sadam) over there.



Post  41842  by  lkorrow       Reply
nacl, Yes, a fund! 2005, what a disaster. Is he the senior person or did the Dems elect him majority leader? Showing my ignorance . . .

Post  41843  by  garhart       OT Gold conference in NYC will be covered by Tom O


Post  41844  by  lucrorei       Reply
Stockman17

I agree with what you say, the anger comes more from an entepreneurial point of view. Charging members to post on a message board based website is a plain stupid idea. I have noticed a number of these sites lately doing this.

I understand the web business and realize times are tough but this is not the way to make money. Without users a message board based website has nothing, charging users deters new users and lessens activity which is exactly what you dont want. People will go where the activity is, where the other people are.

IMO websites like SI with the nearsightedness of trying to create new revenue streams by charging their users to post the very messages that make the site what it is will be history in the next 18 months.

No hard feelings stockman, just the way I see it.

~Rei


Post  41845  by  ljpit       OT: lkorrow, if you had to make a best guess, what


Post  41846  by  spirare       Reply
September 12, 2002, Spot gold in New York settled higher at $318.0 an ounce, up $2.30 an ounce
from yesterday?s close.
The price of gold firmed up after Federal Reserve
Chairman Alan Greenspan gave testimony before the House Banking Committee
stating that the economy is still suffering under "depressing effects" that "still
linger".
Greenspan's testimony also covered his personal views on the need to
prevent a sharper run-up in deficits and the role that legal spending caps play in
enforcing budgetary discipline.
President George W. Bush stated his case against
Iraq today before the United Nations.
"We cannot stand by and do nothing while
dangers gather.
We must stand up for our security and for the permanent rights
and the hopes of mankind. By heritage and choice, the United States will make
that stand.
And delegates to the United Nations, you have the power to make that
stand as well," Bush said. The price of gold held firm after both men talked and
was further supported on weak economic data.
The equities markets were
weaker as data revealed a new record current account deficit for the second
quarter and that new claims for unemployment rose for the previous week.

London gold was fixed this afternoon at $318.85 an ounce, up from $318.00 an
ounce at the morning fixing.
The gold market continued to recover strongly with
physical buying adding to the upward momentum and the weaker U.S. dollar
prompting buying during Asian hours.
Analysts and traders thought gold would be
protected from a sharp down move in the short term due to fears that the U.S.
would launch an attack on Iraq.
"It will remain event-driven...but unless
investment demand really does kick in, the price has got to come back down at
some point," said Simon Weeks, bullion director at SoctiaMocatta.
Traders were
also waiting to hear Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan's testimony as he
tries to calm nervous markets on the fragile state of the economy.

Traders have been buying perceived safe haven investments ahead of U.S.
President George Bush?s speech at the United Nations where he will state his
case for military intervention in Iraq.
Anticipating a strike, and a war that by one
estimate might cost the U.S. as much as $80 billion, investors have been buying
two-year U.S. Treasury notes, stocking up on gold, purchasing Swiss francs and
piling into oil.
Gold, which surged to a six-week high last week of $322.80 an
ounce as expectations of military action heightened, may reach $360 -- the highest
since February 1997, some analysts said.
A prolonged engagement might send
gold to more than $400 an ounce, they said.
"We are waiting...but many are
expecting that he'll (Bush) go into a kind of war sooner or later," a European
trader said.

President George W. Bush vowed on Wednesday night in a Sept. 11 anniversary speech that the
United States would not allow "any terrorist or tyrant"
to threaten civilization with weapons of mass destruction.

Gold is seen by many
investors as a safe-haven asset in uncertain times.

Earlier gold rose 60 cents in Hong Kong to close at $318.25.
Gold rose on
Thursday in Asia, as a stronger Australian dollar against the US dollar led
Australian traders and banks to buy gold.
There was also speculation of
producers buying back their hedges, according to a trader.
Trading was rather
muted ahead of U.S. President George W. Bush's address to the United Nations
later on Thursday.
Bush is expected to challenge the UN to take action to enforce
its resolutions on Iraq. "People just don't want to take positions here...because
nobody knows if there will be any kind of terrorist action," said William Leung,
dealer at Standard London (Asia) in Hong Kong.
"There is no clear direction at
the moment," Leung added. There was some selling from Japan-based traders at
the opening, which was met with buying by Australians, but volumes were not
large, a Sydney trader with a market maker there said.
"It is a very, very quiet
market today.
Nobody is really interested," the trader added.
Gold also
maintained support at $315 despite selling from long-position holders, and that
attracted buying interest from dealers, a Hong Kong trader said.
According to a
Wednesday JP Morgan technical report, as long as gold stayed above $314.85,
its "underlying bull bias remains intact".

The initial unemployment claims report for the week ending September 7, showed
a 19K increase to 426K (consensus 400K) for the Sep. 7 week.
The higher level
of claims supports the growing consensus that economic recovery is sluggish and
that jobs are not easy to come by.
The second quarter current account gap grew
15.6 percent to a record $129.96 billion, up from $112.45 billion during the first
three months of the year. The number far exceeded analysts' expectations of a
$123.84 billion deficit.


Comment:

Physical buying of gold has surged on the possibility of war in the
Middle East and September 11 jitters.

Petroleum prices also surged in world
markets.

Crude oil prices rose in recent trading on the New York Mercantile
Exchange (Nymex) following a warning by the US Navy that there could be
possible attacks on oil tankers in the Gulf.

European investors have also been
buying into gold and oil ahead of the President?s speech in anticipation of higher
energy costs should war break out with Iraq.

Oil costs are likely to rise not only
on fears of war, but also because of dwindling reserves as outlined by the
International Energy Agency (IEA) in a recent report.

Today?s unemployment
figures clearly show a weakening economic picture as corporations are cutting
costs because they no longer have pricing power.

The danger for the economy
now is that the consumer is not spending as before.

The current outlook for the
U.S. economy is grim. The stock markets headed lower toward the end of the
trading session as investors focus on ?warnings season? or as some call it
?confession season?.

Corporate earnings are expected to be under pressure with
an overall weaker corporate earnings forecast.

Gold benefited from the weaker
stock market as the indices finished near the lows as well as a general weakening
of the U.S. dollar that also finished on its lows.

The price of gold continued to tick
up slightly after the close of trading in the gold pits.

***Gold once again retains its reputation as a ?safe haven? investment.***



Forex Gold Spot moving higher*^*^*^*^*^

http://quotes.ino.com/chart/?s=FOREX_XAUUSDO&v=dmax


Last trade $318.2 Change +$1.40/oz (+0.44%)

CALVF will follow the GoldBull*^*^*^*^*^

Let the LT Gold Trend be your LT good friend*^*^*^*^*^

At Barbrook Gold Mine, SA the mineworkers are paid
by union contract and the payrate is $118/month with
28 days working and two Sundays off.

http://www.uct.ac.za/depts/geolsci/dlr/images/d247.jpg

Before last layoff it was about 500 black mineworkers
employed by Barbrook.
Barbrook Gold Mines has been in production since
1886 more than 100 years but the large prime rich PM land is less than 10% explored, 43 Sq.km.

The old miners mostly only followed the old vein structure.

It will be very exciting for Calvf do some exploration and drilling.

The drilling often just was made to determine were to go with the adits and mine the ore for next 3
mon. at the best.

Calvf spent $9.3 million in 1996 to increase the production capacity and more improvements every
year since to prod. capacity of the mill & dev.res...

http://www.caledoniamining.com


(Voluntary Disclosure: Position- Long; ST Rating- Strong Buy; LT Rating- Strong Buy)




Post  41847  by  srudek       Reply
culmus/pmcw: specious logic re options.

In the end, as has been evident for some time, the options discussion comes down to some people want them and some people don't. No amount of "logic" is likely to bridge that chasm. In my opinion, the continued existence of the pro-options group provides strong evidence that this stock market will continue to fall to work off this excess. In the interim, hopefully the major parties to this discussion can all agree that (1) options break the intention of the double entry accounting model (see my comment at bottom) and (2) stock options should require explicit approval of shareholders.

But I thought pmcw needed to be called on some comments in a recent post: "Hopefully, you've also come to understand that options, in and of themselves as a method of compensation, is not bad.

Options, like steel used to make guns, are not bad, but they can be improperly used. Doing away with options or creating a unilaterally punitive way to treat options would disfavor small businesses. The problems of corporate malfeasance must be attacked at the roots, not at the leaves.


I've bolded a few lines which I think are a bit specious -- imo, pmcw is doing something here (inadvertently, I'm sure) which is very similar to what pmcw accused Buffett of doing with his "if options aren't an expense, what are they?" mis-leading logic. I can't let him get away with that.

Hopefully, it will be ok with pmcw if we change his sentence oh so slightly to: "Options, LIKE ASSAULT RIFLES, are not bad, but they can be improperly used. Doing away with options or creating a unilaterally punitive way to treat options would disfavor UNDER-FUNDED businesses." Imo, this restatement is immensely more analogous of the actual situation: steel is a necessity, assault rifles -- like options -- are clearly not. Steel, by its nature, is completely neutral; Assault rifles and stock options are not really neutral. They don't HAVE to be used for "evil" purposes, but they sure make achievement of evil purposes almost trivially easy. And their "legitimate" purposes are really quite suspect.

To appreciate my restatement, culmus, you need to understand that in the U.S. many very intelligent, very articulate people have argued very strenuously that the average citizen should easily be able to buy as many assault rifles as they wish because "the right of the people to bear arms" is a freedom "guaranteed by our constitution" and "guns don't kill people; only people kill people." As you might expect, we've had quite a few innocent people killed with assault rifles through the years -- but not enough Americans can see any sufficient correlation between the assault rifle and the death.

And the business about "punitive" treatment of stock options "disfavor[ing] small businesses" pulls at the heartstrings of many Americans and is also specious. Americans almost reflexively favor underdogs and the American "dream" of the the underfunded entrepreneur hitting it big.

There are a few problems, imo, here as well, however: Is Cisco as small business? Is Oracle? Is Microsoft? I guess they still can't afford to pay proper salaries?

And who is REALLY the underdog at the options party? Is the "small business" with only hundred million of venture capital behind it more of an underdog than the average, ignorant U.S. citizen who doesn't understand much of anything about accounting but is, nevertheless, being relentlessly enticed to "invest" his/her life savings? Implicit in the statement that restrictions on options would "disfavor small companies" is that these small companies are so grossly underfunded -- and, apparently, can't get any sophisticated private investors to adequately fund them -- that they actually can't compete (which usually means CAN'T SURVIVE, long term) if they actually have to pay their employees a fair salary? So, to make things "fair" to these poor small companies we need to give them charity at the expense of ignorant, average people.
-----------------------

A long time ago I proposed that options COULD be run through a double entry accounting system without "breaking" it by accounting for them as "Extraordinary Income from Confiscation of Owners' Equity". I proposed this in a jesting entry -- but I still haven't seen a rebuttal of my logic.

Yes, once you then EXPENSE the options at market value, the total transaction has a net zero result. However, this DOES allow options to be expensed -- so Buffett and the FASB aren't necessarily caught with their pants completely down.

Maniati, as I recall, cited the "net zero" effect as a reason to not bother doing what I suggested. Imo, in this regard he was showing his lack of understanding regarding the discipline of accounting. LOTS of economic transactions have a net zero effect but they still must be journaled. And the existence of that "Extraordinary Income" account would be a good tip-off, even if it netted to zero.

Creation of a solid audit trail and the fullest possible disclosure of transactions is core to modern accounting. Imo, you can tell what is really motivating many of the pro-options crowd by the fact that are almost as opposed GLARING disclosure as they are to "expensing". If you're doing something which side-steps the double entry accounting model and principles in a material way, you should be going out of your way to over-document and draw special attention to the transaction.

Also, it's my understanding that although the financial statements disbursed to the public may not show options as an expense, the IRS DOES allow options to be expensed and this is much of the allure: you can report higher income not merely because you save on salary expense but because you can then save on taxes by "expensing" the options on your taxes. It was this double-standard that the pro-options crowd fought to viciously to retain when FASB proposed options "expensing" on financial statements back in 1993. Or do I misunderstand something?

Anyway, it's been an interesting interaction between the North-going Zax and the South-going Zax. ;-)




Post  41848  by  lkorrow       Reply
ljpit, I'm not an expert, never paid much attention before the last year, but I'd venture to say it's because they all stick together, they all support terrorism, and they have a plan to take over the world. I saw some commentary on TV where they were discussing an interview with some young adults in an Arab country. Forget which one, not Saudi Arabia, might have been Iran. They were asked what they thought of democratic ideals and lifestyles in the U. S. They said they liked many parts of our way of life. Sounds good, right, like what we've heard about the pro-Democratic Iranians waiting in the wings to take over. In the next breath, they said oh yes, they'd love to join the jihad as soon as possible. eom.



Post  41849  by  lkorrow       Reply
Update on optical, Cisco's going for the gusto and sitting on $12B+ in cash. . . .

Cisco Sees the Light in Optical -- Again

By Scott Moritz
Senior Writer
09/12/2002 07:04 AM EDT
Click here for more stories by Scott Moritz

Don't look now, but Cisco's (CSCO:Nasdaq) got an optical vision again.

Though cash-strapped big customers long ago lost their appetite for new telecom equipment -- especially innovative gear that fails to fit effortlessly into existing network schemes -- Cisco is turning its focus once more on the once admired but now overlooked business of optical switching.

Some observers expect Cisco to unveil a new optical switch at an industry show next week. Considering telecom's deep freeze and Cisco's ham-handed history in the fast-moving optical business, the massive data-networking shop could face long odds in making the project a success. Even so, the new effort also shows how eager Cisco is to find new growth areas -- and how it can use its solid financial health to get them.

Raising the Drawbridge

Still considered a stealth project, Cisco's new metro box is said to fit somewhere between a replacement for its popular Cerent switch and a slimmed-down version of its failed wavelength router, an ambitious optical technology it acquired with its 1999 purchase of Monterey.

A Cisco representative didn't return calls seeking comment.

Optical switches act as lightning-fast drawbridges controlling traffic flow between numerous pathways. Ciena (CIEN:Nasdaq - news - commentary - research - analysis) enjoyed a fair amount of success until its recent free-fall in selling its CoreDirector optical switch to phone companies looking to make speedy connections for city-to-city traffic routes. It's likely that Cisco is targeting a similar opportunity with a box that can connect traffic routes within cities (hence "metro").

Though optical sales remain far off at this point, analysts say some smaller phone companies have at least shown an interest in lab-testing the technology. But even with the spending deep freeze winnowing the field, Cisco's new offering will first have to duke it out with similar gear from rival outfits such as Fujitsu, Alcatel (ALA:NYSE - news - commentary - research - analysis) and Ciena.

Boldly Going

Cisco's willingness to invest in iffy long-range product-development efforts marks a bold departure from the current cost-cutting and product-slashing trend among the large gear pushers. Both Nortel (NT:NYSE - news - commentary - research - analysis) and Lucent (LU:NYSE - news - commentary - research - analysis), for example, continue to cut unprofitable product lines, including gear like optical switches that were once thought to represent growth markets and the future of the business.

Considering how tight budgets have become across the struggling telecom sector, the purse-string-pulling at Nortel and Lucent hardly strikes some people as irresponsible. "I'm not sure the industry is looking for anything in optical switching right now," says Mark Lutkowitz, an analyst with Communications Industry Research, a Charlottesville, Va., research shop. "Plus, Cisco has had a miserable track record in optical. Just look at their Pirelli acquisition, which was a laugh. And Monterey turned out to be a fiasco.

"But hey," Lutkowitz continues, "if anyone can take the risk it's Cisco."

That's so because unlike its debt-saddled, cash-poor peers, Cisco has billions of dollars in the bank and a commanding lead in its core busineses of making gear to transmit data traffic. But even as the company uses its financial might to push ailing competitors further down the sickly industry's slippery slope, it still needs to find growth areas to placate sometimes churlish investors. After all, merely maintaining a big market-share lead and churning out solid numbers hardly stand to soothe investors who have seen their stock drop some 80% from its Internet boom-era peak.

Building the Teleport
During the Internet building boom, optical gear represented the equivalent of the skyscraper. Telcos could cram far more capacity into the same footprint that previous generations of electronic gear occupied. And with dozens of coast-to-coast fiber-optic networks sprouting up, demand for traffic boxes zoomed.

Cisco, Lucent, Nortel, Ciena and others ran a breakneck race to provide this gear, and investors were quick to punish any equipment shop that failed to deliver the machinery to outfit these speculative, grandiose, "all-optical" networks.

But as we all know, that buildout led to a glut that wiped away nearly all demand for big optical-networking gear.

Each of the gearmakers has since had to make painful adjustments to cut operations down to match the trickle of demand.

Having convinced only three customers -- one happened to be WorldCom -- to try out the Monterey wavelength router, Cisco killed the project in April 2001. Cisco optical chief Carl Russo has since moved on and was replaced by Jayshree Ullal, a self-described projection beater specializing in new markets.

But analysts point out that even the most hard-charging manager may have difficulty cracking a market that's all but collapsed.



Post  41850  by  tinljhtkh       OT: As we come to the close of the September 11th


Post  41851  by  lkorrow       Reply
ljpit, To clarify, when I said they "all" support terrorism, I didn't mean all people/Arabs. I was thinking in terms of governments that would never act against a terrorist state like Iraq. I suppose because they had to come to us last time Iraq attacked its neighbors, they don't have the capability to take care of the problem themselves. Maybe they can't get close to him. What do you think?



Post  41852  by  pacemakernj       Reply
nac101, count me in. Pace




Post  41853  by  pacemakernj       Reply
Linda, I just saw on PBS with Jim Leherer. He had a sound bite from TD. Get this, "the President today hasn't made the case fully to him yet that we should go to war with Iraq." Huh? Excuse me, Tom, would you prefer he drop some anthrax on, oh, shall we say Jerusalam? How about some good old mustard gas in say Tel Aviv? I guess then after a few hundred thousand people died would that be enough proof for you? Or, would you still hold out and hope he waited to deliver a nuclear bomb to lower Manhattan, just because, well, he wanted to finish the job started by OBL! Maybe than? No still not satisfied? Let's talk about it some more. We just haven't made the case yet. Afterall, he's only defied every UN Security Council resolution for the past 12 F'IN YEARS. I said the other day that these liberals could care less about their country and only about their power. OCU went nuts on me. Well here's more proof that this guy will do ANYTHING to regain control of Congress. That includes selling out the country. It is simply disgraceful. Pace.


Post  41854  by  uponroof       OT pace...gold conference


Post  41855  by  lkorrow       Reply
Yes, the man's a disgrace. I don't think he's gaining control of anything, though, not with a 20% rating. People aren't happy with the Dems, I don't think. I have always liked some balance, but they may get a rude awakening this time. We'll see what falls out!

Deliver a nuclear bomb to lower Manhattan? There was only small mention of the Libyan ship that came into NY Harbor yesterday, September 11th. It was sent back out to sea 12 miles because they picked up radioactive readings on it. Now it's being searched in NJ. This was yesterday, while the President was here! Not that I don't value my own skin too. But TD should get the idea, don't you think. It's possible that reading they got was a defective instrument, but it read gamma rays, which implies a bomb, not just a dirty bomb. Proof they'll try anything they can. Look at the countries that harbored the al queda and taliban, they haven't come clean. They're a club. I have a similar opinion to maniati, I think. I abhor the thought of war, but would fight to the end supporting whatever GWB believes we should do based on his intelligence. With fast-spreading ebola, nuclear bombs, etc., the game has changed. That makes antrhax look like cool aid. Shoot, we don't want to take over these countries or see innocent people in Iraq or our folks die so I hope the inspections work out. But we can't let them take us down either, so whatever GWB says I'm behind him. And he's got the best team in the world.


Post  41856  by  motordavid       OT: An unusual/interesting link
Post  41857  by  pmcw       OT: lk, pace (and I'm sure others), you'll love t
Post  41858  by  ferociousD       OT: The End of Empire
Post  41859  by  lkorrow       OT: pmcw, oh wow, what can one say. Those are some


Post  41860  by  Starfleet       Reply
ferocious, the notion that America's military might will be comprised by a growing trade deficit transcends farce into outright surrealism. One fatal flaw of the left, all the way back to Marx, has been to take a snapshot of an economy and society and assume that is the way it will always be. The downturn in America's economic fortunes are transitory and rather then being indicative of a downward spiral is merely the foundation of an even stronger, more dynamic economic rebound. Indeed, the efficiencies, streamlining and Darwinian selection of the cleverest and most farsighted innovators as the dominant survivors of this 3-5 year period of market and economic corrections will translate into more, not less discretionary spending as more and more businesses push ahead into profitability and innovation. ie; defense spending will increase not decrease in the coming decades. And our weapons will become even more awesome and capable of guaranteeing success on any battlefield the enemies of America care to fight on. It's a strange irony but the weapons of a free people are always the deadliest for a tyranny to reckon with.

This notion of American unilateralism is silly. The plain truth is that it was forced on us by a European Union so obsessed with consensus the nations of Europe are almost paralyzed into inaction. If in doubt just look at the situation that played itself out in the Balkans. Something very close to genocide was happening just a few hundred miles from the capitols of Europe and all the Europeans could finally agree on was to call the Americans to come do almost ALL the fighting for them. Unbelievable! The Europeans have been given the ultimate free lunch-60 years of Americans paying for their collective defense with the resultant Europe a dysfunctional delusional basket case that has actually managed to convince itself that in the face of murderous evil armies of diplomats can accomplish more then armies of solders. What are they into now, they're third decade of "quite diplomacy" trying to moderate the Iranians? The bottom line is when we go in alone we go in alone, when we go in with our allies we go in alone. This "unilateralism" has been shoved down our throats by allies that simply can't convince themselves there's anything left to fight for. Pathetic. Just leave them to their fading memories of past glories and leave America to save the world from the madman of the Mideast and the cowards of Europe. I mean for crying out loud if they won't get into the ring with us at least have the decency to hold our coats without complaining like little cry babies


Post  41861  by  ferociousD       Starfleet-