DOW up almost 300 points due to news of war with Iraq.......

[Ronnie Raygun]

http://www.timesunion.com/AspStories...de=BNFRONTPAGE

Stocks Narrowly Mixed Ahead of Iraq War
By AMY BALDWIN, Associated Press
Last updated: 11:10 a.m., Tuesday, March 18, 2003

NEW YORK -- Cautious investors took profits from a big four-day rally and did little buying Tuesday in advance of war with Iraq. Stocks were narrowly mixed.

In late morning trading, the Dow Jones industrial average was up 4.06, or 0.1 percent, at 8,145.98 after rising by a stunning 617.86 in the previous four sessions. But the broader market was lower. The Nasdaq composite index fell 5.80, or 0.4 percent, to 1,386.47. The Standard & Poor's 500 index declined 1.84, or 0.2 percent, to 860.95.

President Bush told the nation Monday night that he would order a massive military strike unless Saddam Hussein goes into exile by Wednesday evening. He also warned the nation about terror attacks and announced that the White House was raising the terror alert to orange, the second-highest level.

On Tuesday, Iraq's leadership rejected Bush's demands.

Stocks have been rallying since last week on investors' growing hopes that war would be short and successful, spurring business and consumer confidence. Analysts have said, however, that stocks will have a difficult time holding onto rallies as long as there is uncertainty about war.

Investors were awaiting a decision on interest rates from the Federal Reserve later Tuesday amid some speculation that the central bank would lower rates by another 0.25 percentage point. The Fed has lowered rates 12 times since early 2001 in an effort to reinvigorate the economy.

Meanwhile, Tuesday's data on the economy was downbeat as the Commerce Department reported that new housing construction plunged by 11 percent in February, the sharpest decline in nearly a decade.

Home builders were subsequently among Wall Street's decliners. Centex fell 62 cents to $51.98 and Lennar stumbled 55 cents to $51.50.

Investors also took profits from oil companies after bidding them higher on the belief that oil prices will decline after the situation with Iraq is resolved. ConocoPhilips fell 96 cents to $50.04 after First Albany downgraded the oil and gas company to "sell."

Among the market's winners, LaBranche rose 55 cents to $18.90 after Raymond James upgraded the trading specialist firm to "outperform."

Applied Materials advanced 18 cents to $13.31 after the chip equipment maker announced a restructuring plan that including cutting its work force by 14 percent, or 2,000 employees.

Advancing issues matched declinerson the New York Stock Exchange. Volume was light.

The Russell 2000 index, which tracks smaller company stocks, fell 0.47, or 0.1 percent, to 364.93.

Overseas, Japan's Nikkei stock average finished Tuesday up 1.1 percent. In Europe, France's CAC-40 declined 2.2 percent, Britain's FTSE 100 rose 0.4 percent and Germany's DAX index gained 1.6 percent.

[mburbank]

Phewsh! I was really concerned war profiteers would suffer a crisis in confidence.

[Ronnie Raygun]

As far as the dow is concerned, we will all be profiteers......if we partake that is.

[Bennett]

So after lambasting Max, for saying that if the war goes badly or if the economy takes a dive Bush will likely be voted out of office, you're basically saying that you want people to die so the stock market will prosper?

[Ronnie Raygun]

Your comprehension sucks.

I want Iraq to be free and I want WMD out of the hands of a mad man who has vowed to see us destroyed.

I am optimistic about what this coutry can accomplish and what we stand for.

Max, on the other hand hates what this country stands for and wants to see Conservatives lose no matter what the cost. Even if it means a declining economy or a massive amount of U.S. casualties on the battlefield.

See the difference?

If not, give up and go back to general.

[Bennett]

Sorry, you stated that we all will profit from this. How that statement relates to wanting to oust a dictator or free the people of Iraq, well yes, that is beyond my comprehension.

If that is what you truly believe, then why post a "war for profit" article? Is that what you are saying that our country stands for?

[Anonymous]

No. Bennett. No. You're missing the point.

We are profiting from the deaths of OTHER PEOPLE. Not us. Others. Max wants US to die, and logically, if that happened, the profits would like, so go the other way. That way being 'not good.'

That's why Max's idea is bad. Because it's not good.

[Anonymous]

Sorry Bennet, you are incorrect.

Perhaps a re-read is in order.

I believe Ronnie said "AS FAR AS THE DOW IS CONCERNED," we would all profit. Surely, you can agree that the Dow Index rising is a good thing for the economy, regardless of the driving force behind it, can't you?

[mburbank]

"Max, on the other hand hates what this country stands for "

Here are some of the things "Our country stands for" that I don't hate.

Freedom of speech.
Freedom of religion.
The separation of church and state.
Free education.
Equal Rights.


Wow, Nalds. You're really lieing today. What's it like to tell so many lies? How does it square with your Christianity when you add to the list of things your able to unequivically divine about me that I 'hate' my country as opposed to 'hating' this dministration?

Go on, liar. make a list of things I hate about my country. Unless you're all tuckered out from lieing so much.

[CaptainBubba]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Raygun

I want WMD out of the hands of a mad man who has vowed to see us destroyed.

When did that happen? :/

Burbank: Education? The Federal gov. is responsible for single handedly making my generation comprised mainly of morons. Hell, I can barely spell and I'm considered one of the smart ones. :/

[Anonymous]

You mentioned to Ronnie that he should ask you questions directly if he wanted to klnow something. I am assuming the same offer would be available to anyone. If not I apologize. If so, however, I wanted to ask a few questions max.

1.) Do you believe capitalism is necessary for the United States to remain free, by it's own definition as penned by our predecessors?

2.) Do you believe freedom of speech should allow for the destruction of private and or public property while protesting government decisions?

3.) Do you belkieve that the media, in general, is slanted left or right, and why?

4.) Do you believe France, Germany, Russia, and/or China opposes this war for any reasons not self serving to their respective countries?

5.) Do you believe that is the United States Federal Government's responsibility as dictated in the Constitution, to defend the national security of this country?

6.) Do you believe Saddam Hussein has funded terrorist operations outside of his own country? By "Do you believe," I mean exactly that.

[Bennett]

Of course in and of itself, the Dow rising is a good thing.
To say that it is good regardless of the driving force behind it, I cannot agree with, and is irrelevant in this thread.

[mburbank]

Panty;

You can certainly ask, but I'm mocking Naldo's claim to being eager to answer direct questions. I can't personlly agree to even be serious where your questions are concerned. See, Naldo thinks he would answer a direct question, but it's a very rare thing to see, and he goes nuts when I draw valid conclusions based on what he does post.

That's all as may be.

"1.) Do you believe capitalism is necessary for the United States to remain free, by it's own definition as penned by our predecessors?"

Not to be glib, but define your terms. Some form of capitalism? Absolutely. Naldos claim that I'm a communist is based on not knowing hat the word means. I'm more of a new dealer. I believe in regualted capitalism. I think unfettered, social darwinist laisez faire capitalism is very dangerous for a country, and I think the degree to which the wealth of this country is seprated is immoral and in the long run does not evcen support the self interest of the wealthy themselves.

2.) Do you believe freedom of speech should allow for the destruction of private and or public property while protesting government decisions?

Who's private property? If you mean should I be able to burn flag I bought, yes, I should be ble to. I'm not sure I would, but I should be able to. Someone elses property or public property? Of course not. I'm for passive resistance and peaceful civil disobedience. Anything else is a distraction and wrong, UNLESS you face an untendable situation of repression which calls for civil war. Much as I hate W at al, we are nowhere in sight of that. But I think you'll agree, the founding fathers did indeed forsee the possibility.

3.) Do you belkieve that the media, in general, is slanted left or right, and why?

Entertainment or informtion, and where do you draw the line. Our print media, I think on balnce is centrist and reprsentative. Unfortunately it's also bone lazy. Our radio and television news media are canted sefverely right. Example? Tom Brokaw in front of a graphic that says "When Diplomacy Fails". A leftists slant would be "When diplomacy is never tried" or "Does Bush know what diplomacy is?". Another? MSNBC which is supposed to be an alternative to the hugely right wing FOX fires Donahue. CNN yields to the governments call to submit it's texts to cencorship, going so far as to create a secret boadr of censors.

4.) 6.) Do you believe Saddam Hussein has funded terrorist operations outside of his own country? By "Do you believe," I mean exactly that.

I do believe he has. Are you interested I think his terrorist funding is small beans next to what several of our allies have engaged in? Do you know from whom North Korea got it's Nuclear scientiffic know how?

So, now that you know where I stand personally, what was that all about?

[Protoclown]

Max, it looks like you've either accidentally skipped over questions 4 and 5, or they were eaten by your post.

I figured I'd make you aware of this before Ronnie comes in and tries to jump all over it and say you didn't answer all the questions.

[The_Rorschach]

There is alot here I'd like to respond to, but for the moment, I'll just take this:

"The Federal gov. is responsible for single handedly making my generation comprised mainly of morons. Hell, I can barely spell and I'm considered one of the smart ones"

I realize its easy to believe that the Authorities and Powers That Be are either supreme powers of unlimited evil or hopelessly incompetant beaurocrats incapable of anything, but neither is true. They are just people, no different from the fools we each see daily in the mirror, save in that they have chosen to use their lives to accomplish something.

The Morons of your generation created themselves. Information is disseminated widely, and accessable to anyone who is willing to attain it. If you are too lazy to educate yourself, or look for anything aside from what you are spoonfed in school, then you don't deserve the knowledge others have worked so hard to attain. Grow up, and stop passing the buck on what is really noone elses responsibility but your own. Snivelling little shit. Its people like you who are running this country into the ground with your demands of entitlement.

[mburbank]

Thanks, Proto:

4.) Do you believe France, Germany, Russia, and/or China opposes this war for any reasons not self serving to their respective countries?

I'm not so up on Russia and China's reasoning, but I imagine it's self interest. Your not suggesting our ever changing reasons are altruistic, are you? Is it surprising to you that governments act to protect their interests? Or are you looking at levels of blatant lies surrounding the protection of those interests?

Individuals within countries, though, often base their opposition to foreign policy on less cynical aims. I don't think the average French, German, British, Turkish, Russian, Chinese citizen calculates their stake in Iraqs oil among the paramount reasosn they are against war.

Did you think I was going to stick up for the lofty goals of the French Government? Or Putin? Listen, I'm not the guy who 'looked into his soul'. That was W. So sorry he didn't look more deeply.

5.) Do you believe that is the United States Federal Government's responsibility as dictated in the Constitution, to defend the national security of this country?

NO! ABSOLUTELY NOT! THEY SHOULD LIE IN THE DIRT AND LET US ALL DIE! You're kind of a doofus, aren't you? Of course it's their responsablity, just as it's an American citizens responsability to vocally protest when they believe their Government is on a disasterous path. I have seen no compelling evidence that our actions in Iraq 'defend the national security'. In fact, convincing arguments have been made that it decreases our national security, and that's one of the reasons I'm against it. W by alienating many of our allies, whipping our enemies into a frenzy, fracturing nato, decreases our national security daily, and in my opinion fails miserably in the very duty you mention. With no connection having been established between al quaeda and Iraq, this is a war of oportunism. I do not see tat increasing national security.

[VinceZeb]

You buy a flag to burn it, when all that does is support and give money to the people who make the flag, who happen to be in the US or China. If you wanted to be a real brave boy, you should have STOLE the flag and then burned it. But of course, just like all the other U.S. protestors, they protest when in fact they are not threatened at all. Protest Saddam while in Iraq about 3 months ago. That is balls. I have much more respect for the Chinese protestors in the Square than I do for some lame duck college kids that whine about the opressive reigem and about how we should free cop killers.

Besides, the phrase or idea of "seperation of church and state" doesnt even exists in our Constution or the stand-alone Bill of Rights.