United States Heading towards a Depression?

Are you suggesting that Beck, O'Reilly and Hannity are not 110% loony commentary?

I would put Cavuto in there also, but he does mix news with cheap shots. I still remember him talking the day before the 2004 elections and he says about American freedoms and supporting the war on terror; "... but how can you enjoy those freedoms, when you're dead?" In other words, vote for Kerry and you will die.

 

You are confusing talk show hosts which are opinion and commentary with my suggestion that MSNBC's "news team" and "news" personalities are biased and opinionated. You are talking about something entirely different. I'm talking about news. Not late night or mid day talk shows.

 

Do you blame Roosevelt for the casualties in WW2?

 

Don't forget Waco. Never forget Waco:

On April 19th, 1993 the Federal Bureau of Investigation murdered 81 individuals suspected of criminal activity, including 18 children. To cover-up this atrocity, the Bureau destroyed evidence created by themselves, by the media, and by local law-enforcement agencies. In the end, they bull-dozed the crime scene to prevent inquiry into their mis-deeds. Footage from their own FLIR cameras proves conclusively that two FBI agents fired fully-automatic weapons at the only possible escape path for the women and children during the fire in the church kitchen.

No one has been punished for these murders.​

 

No. Fighting terror was not a diversion but a fundamental responsibility of the Commander in Chief.

 

The Iraq argument was over WMD and genocide. Terrorism definitely was not a part of the reason for going in. So stop trying to rewrite history. The reasons for being in Iraq have changed so many times over the years in an attempt to justify the war.

And if you are going to pin Kosovo casualties on Clinton, then Bush has 100,000 documented civilian casualties in Iraq under his cap. The war in Iraq is far more controversial than Kosovo was and you know it.

 

The leaders of that cult murdered it's members by opening fire on authorities and then setting the place on fire. DON'T EVEN try to blame that on the FBI.

 

Really???

How many terrorist attacks, niteclub bombings, school massacres, embassy attacks, happened before the USA overthrew Saddam?

Now, how many attacks happened AFTER?

Before the overthrow of Saddam, each year there were about a dozen terrorist attacks somewhere in the world. After, well, haven't the attacks seemed to have almost stopped?

Look, DubDubDubDot, I know that you refuse to ever back up anything you write, so let me ask you this: Do you think Saddam Hussein was funding terrorism?

 

Rather than lip-service the public the Democrats, liberals are back in position to manage properly the public trust.

What a reach - as though if it were left to Saddam there would "only" have been a dozen attacks each year. Clinton held the lot of them at bay without bankrupting the economy and balanced the budget as well - how many times must we remind the Republicans about balancing the budget than political ploys for them to win elections, exploiting our military for their paltry gains.

 

This is why I love arguing with Republicans. You people make it too easy.

It does not surprise me that a Republican would link Saddam to terror because they were seeing less terror reports in the news since the invasion.

While smart people look the data up to verify it, you have allowed yourself to fall victim of the media's news cycle. If viewers get tired of certain stories, they cut down on reporting them and move onto something of greater shock value to rejuvenate ratings. The most extreme case of this was "The year of the shark!" in 2001 when they reported every single shark attack and caused widespread panic among vacationers. When in reality, shark attack incidents that year were not out of the ordinary.

As for your dozen terror attacks per year, the number was (and still is) much higher. The US government no longer publishes it's annual report. In 2004 the figure was so high that Bush (Cheney, more likely) killed the report and they were never released again. Simply put, it was an embarrassment on their "successful" war on terror.

Year, Attacks
2004 ??
2003 208
2002 199
2001 346
2000 423
1999 392
1998 273
1997 304
1996 296
1995 440

For more current incidents of attacks and attempted attacks... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents

So far this year there have been 55 incidents. But again, these stories do not have their shock value anymore, so you don't really see them in the news.

 

A possible Dow plunge to 5,000 this year and double dip recession. Interesting article on the dead cat bounce.

http://finance.yahoo.com/banking-budgeting/article/108837/dead-cat

 

Highly unlikely. Stop reading fear monger articles targeted towards the layman.

And even if such a crash is going to happen, do you not see the opportunity here? Start saving your pennies up now if you honestly believe these discounts are going to be available this year.

For a more accurate look at a "dead cat bounce" look at Oct 10 - Nov 3 2008 and another one from Nov 19 2008 to Jan 5 2009. What we have seen since the first week of Mar 2009 is a relatively stable recovery with one correction in June 2009 that lasted about a month. It looks like we are seeing a correction right now, but it isn't going to crash to $5k. That is just ridiculous.

 

I'd be careful following your own advice. The DOW had the same value in 1933 as it did in 1943. Save your pennies, tie them up in stocks(assuming you pick a survivor), and you may wind up with the same amount of money in 10 years so long as you don't factor in inflation. That also considers that you will be able to survive on what you don't have invested forcing a sale while the stock value is low.

There are good deals to be had, for a certainty, in both stocks and real estate. It doesn't make what Bogart is saying any less probable.

 

"Dead cat bounces" are just what the phrase imply - no underpinnings to the move and generally profit taking by short sellers that are not meant to be taken seriously as why they are called dead cats.

The market has held up surprisingly well above 10000 without panic earnings. This level could be the lows for the year.

 

Um, keep up. I'm not a Republican.

Gee, DubDubDubDot makes this TOO easy...

There have been less authentic terror reports since the Saddam invasion, despite what that poorly cited Wikipedia entry says.

Then DubDubDubDot is not smart.

Let's start with a little tidbit - Wikipedia is not an authority, Wiki tries to cite alleged authority. Smart people look at Wikipedia's cites, and also look at the big banner at the top of those pages that say that "the factual accuracy" of the article is being disputed, or, if we look at the silly page DubDubDubDot actually referenced, you'll see a pathetic lack of references. Citing Wikipedia is not a substitute for the facts, desptie what DubDubDubDot's empty rhetoric would like us to think.

Now, as far as funding:

Unfortunately, any idiot can strap some cheap explosive to his body and detonate it, all by himself and without extensive financing. Despite what the Republicans, DubDubDubDot, and Wikipedia would like you to believe, these are not part of a coordinated terrorist plan, they are disturbed individuals, acting all by themselves, trying to kill themselves.

Saddam was not funding Wiley Coyote, he was funding an extensive network with his Oil for Food scam, the biggest financial scandal in the history of history (Wikipedia's article on this scandal is sadly lacking).

Does DubDubDubDot think this is about Saddam cutting checks for a spool of wire and soldering iron at the hardware store?

Look it up - terrorist attacks dropped off dramatically after the U.S. overthrew Saddam. This is not about people building small 50-pound bombs for less than $200 that kill ten people. This is about Saddam obtaining exclusive, expensive military-grade chemical explosives where five pounds will kill a hundred people at a cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars.

DubDubDubDot, to put this politely, your bias is entertaining, but it's in your way.

 

Blah, blah, blah without any source.

What terrorist group was Saddam funding? The only people who were funded by oil for food scam was a group of greedy American corporations and individuals who got rich from it. One of those people was Dick Cheney until he got greedy and decided instead of some kick backs from Iraq regime, he wants to take Iraq and have the whole lot.

 

Blah, blah, blah without any source.

 

Dick Cheney: Soldier of Fortune

Don't assume everyone here is like you, some of us actually know what we are talking about.

 

Source? Preferably one that lists terror attacks year by year with specifics of each incident and not just some commentator making the claim. But I doubt you'll be able to come up with such a link though.

The reason why the Wiki lists are disputed is because Republicans (and everyone else who shares their terror fighting beliefs) refuse to accept that about $1 Trillion has been spent fighting terror and it hasn't really made a difference. The war on terror is the new war on drugs. A war that can't be won.

But I look forward to your link with data proving that it is being won.