Yeah, those foreign people are just trying to subvert and destroy 'merika so that they can take away the 'merikans God given right to have MARKET SHARE.
THEY ARE TERRORISTS!!!! WE MUST LIBERATE THEM!!!
This has to be one of the most blatant examples of how ugly the Ugly American has become. Sorry fella, because a foreign government doesn't bend over for their corporate master (a la prezitend bush), it doesn't mean they're out to destroy Microsoft.
It's called a "law." Maybe you remember that from a few years back. I know, I know hasn't been much use of those things for about 4 years now, but I'm sure you can remember them.
The chairman's job is to coordinate and get candidates elected. Dean proved that he's very good at doing this. Dean's Internet fundraising and the Democracy for America organization proves just how well suited Dean is for the position.
North Korea and Cuba show just how tired and wrong this "Ronald Reagan was right" crap is. A state, no matter how poor it may be can run a long, long time so long as those in power do not want change.
Sorry to break it to you, fanboy, but Gorbachev and his policy of Perestroika were responsible for what ultimately happened in the Soviet Union, not Ronald Reagan.
Sorry, but you've still not addressed the point of the post; the fact is you can buy from anyone else in town. Apple only owns the distribution channel, not the songs. And by no means are you locked into that distribution channel.
Like I said, it would make sense if Apple had some kind of ownership rights of the content and weren't allowing anyone else to provide the same content in other formats, but it's just silly to think that Apple should "Open" their distribution channel to competitors.
This is just silly. It's like getting mad at Blockbuster because they don't license every other video rental place in town to use the Blockbuster retail outlets to sell their own movies.
Your argument would almost even make sense if iPod only played music purchased through Apple's iTunes music store. But, the fact is, you can play whatever you want on the hardware (Sorry, Ogg has its place and purposes, but really isn't all that relevant for consumer music playback).
Apple doesn't own the music, they own the distribution chain. That's all. If you don't like Blockbuster, then you go down the street and buy movies from someone else. Likewise, if you don't like Apple, don't buy. Go buy the same content distributed through another source.
Apple doesn't guard any doors except to the end-to-end system which they created themselves. They keep no one from creating their own parallel system; Apple "owns" none of the music, nor controls the distribution of content in any other medium.
If you don't want to play the game, then don't. Go get yourself a copy of emule, start feeling 1337 and pat yourself on the back, man; you're sticking it to the man (Artist? What artist?).
The issue regarding running up2date, or any package management system on hundreds of VPS systems is that it either takes a herculean effort to coordinate updates so they don't run at the same time, and don't interfere with client activities (a schedule which constantly needs to be rescheduled because customers come and go...), or you need to have disk I/O capable of handling that many concurrent updates. Even with six 15K SCSI disks in RAID 10, there's no way our servers could handle that many concurrent updates.
It's not so much an issue of whether it can be done--we have clients who run yum--but whether it's practical for us to implement the system.
It simply can't be done.
In my opinion, up2date has more in common with Microsoft's Windows Update utility than it does with apt-get. We don't need users to have latest versions; we can provide for that through other methods. We need to be able to install custom binaries and dependencies quickly and easily for customers wanting special applicatiosn. Having the latest versions installed is a beneficial byproduct of apt, but just isn't our primary requirement.
Thanks for the pointsers. The problem is, we're using RedHat 9 servers with RedHat 7.3 and Fedora Core 2 VPS servers on top of that.
Package managers just aren't an option most of the time because of the lack of support for older OS libs and the different versions that we need to maintain.
up2date isn't even close to being an option for us, and we simply can't handle doing yum updates in the environment we have. Envision trying to run yum on hundreds of virtual servers at the same time... now envision load averages above 40 for hours... days...
I know there are alternatives to straight rpm hell, but the fact is, they aren't well integrated into these systems. I know for certain using FreeBSD ports or packages would work better than what we have. I also know that having a well integrated package manager like apt would really make all the diffference when dealing with custom installations for clients.
At the end of the day, we've got to deal with a lot of additional requirements that make utilizing the "add on" package managers just impossible.
RPM is the end to end system I have to deal with every single day on RedHat systems. That's the beginning, the middle and the end of it.
I like URPMI, it does its job well. And sure, i'm comparing apples to apple trees, but in the end, it's a tangent of the whole rambling post that really isn't relevant to the point. Yes, it's RPM vs Deb, but in essence, deb and apt always go together, while RPM exists as a living hell of its own on the RedHat systems I work with every day.
Like I said, I still love Mandrake. I think the tools that Mandrake adds to the system shine far above and beyond anything else out there.
Thanks for the pointer to apt4rpm, very much appreciated.
I work with Linux every day. Day in, day out. I know how to use Linux. I know FreeBSD. I know OpenBSD.
I love KDE, and Umbuntu is my current favorite desktop distro (sorry Mandrake, I still love you, but RPM vs Apt...).
But, when I need to get work done, I know I can rely on my Mac. No questions.
I tell you what, Linux can almost compete with windows for desktop usability. Theres still some rough edges. Still some uniformity issues that make it less than desirable for novice users, and still many application issues that make it unusable in many production environments (of course anyone who need a computer to write documents, e-mails and do web-research has the perfect solution in Linux).
Linux isn't the solution for the home user that just wants to use their own computer. Maybe that's the way it should be; the i386 platform, and its hodgepodge of vendors, drivers, chipsets, etc. mean that there really can't be a software solution that can do anything nearly as well as OS X does.
Of course, the down side of it is, your old hardware becomes useless. The upside? You've got a system that works just like you expect it to. You've got a UNIX system with support from major softwre vendors. You've got a quality piece of hardware that retains its resale value much better than its PC counterpart (I sold my first Mac--a cube--for more than I bought it). '
I guess it's kinda hard to read with your feelings all hurt and stuff. There, there... I know it's hard, but you can understand the post you replied to if you try real hard.
Go ahead, try reading it.
I won't misunderstimate you; I know you can, pal, just try.
This may be true, but I think the "young" in this case are young churchgoers.
This doens't preclude the original assessment that more young may have voted republican, but it's not the same traditional young voters that were counted on as a demographic group.
Rove's genius was bringing a whole group of voters that normally sit out simply because 1) no one thought that there were so many and 2) no one has been so openly willing to mix politics and religion.
So, although I don't disagree, I do think that you can look at that younger group as the same demographic group that was traditionally put into that category.
In other words, republicans didn't "win over" anybody. They just managed to capitalize on an untapped source of votes. By demonizing gays and gay marriage, they were able to turn out an amazing number of voters who didn't care about any other issue.
You're talking about a lot of capital investment just roaming around the park. I imagine your corp will already be putting the responsibility onto the client for return of an operational device.
It seems that the best way to recoup costs is not to buy some ruggedized, high-cost version of something that may or may not be popular. Think about the industry as a whole; you probably can't count on any end-user device being attractive to customers for more than a year. There will always be newer and better to replace the older.
Just bulk buy the regular version of the device for a reduced price and rent a protective jacket as an additional cost.
This a) provides an additional revenue stream (think embroidered team logos and reselling your device for markup), and b) reaffirms to the client the idea that it is, in fact, their responsibility to return the device in good working order. Protective sleeves are easily replaceable by anyone. Rather than paying a tech lots of dollars to repair a ruggedized device, you can replace protective covers with minimal overhead.
This has to be the lamest Apple troll I've read in a long time.
But I've got an extra minute to waste.
Anyone who had been running a mac & was looking for the cheapest upgrade certainly wouldn't be buying a PC; the cost of re-buying the software for the other platform breaks the "bargain basement" computer argument.
And $300 for a "gaming" system with Dreamweaver and Photoshop? Right. If you said you were running FreeBSD or Linux, I might even have believed you.
And who needs monitors? Who needs a Windows license? Who needs antivirus scanners? Who needs Spyware checkers? Yeah, man -- who needs all the other stupid things you have to buy in order to get Windows running right.
It says a lot about just how worried the MSFT corporate entity is about competing against Free software.
Microsoft needed a stalling tactic. Two years away from the next-gen OS, security problems riddling their current offerings, and Linux is picking up steam. They absolutely needed something like this. It may have been a "bad deal," but I'd say MSFT was never looking to profit from this investment.
If SCOX had actually won a case, it would have been a bonus, but that wasn't the point of the investment. MSFT wouldn't want anything out of this but to put off adoption until they could fill the gap left by their current offerings.
You might like to label it "elitism" or "liberalism" or "communism" or whatever other meaning eviscerating simplification you desire, but I'd say you've forgotten what this is all about. Democracy is not about agreement, but concessions and compromise.
You can decide that candidate A is too monotone for your vote.; that's your right. What am I going to do? Shake my head in shame -- for it's a shameful state of democratic government when people not only feel like they should vote for someone out of superficial considerations, but that they should also act as if it's normal. It's shameful that people generalize a very diverse set of people to the absolute lowest common denominator and then call that "popular." I'm going to talk about it. I'm going to point it out. And if you think that's elitist, than so be it.
And you might as well be saying that the democratic ideal is so 400BCE too; they are branches from the same tree. Equality and guarantees of protection to those without power by those with power is where they are both derived. Those who forged the democracy of this nation were the passe philosopher kings which gave up their individual power for the sake of all.
I know irony is hard to grasp sometimes, but the premise of the post is not. The post doesn't regard the apathy of voters. It neither identifies anyone as a simpleton, nor complains about people not voting.
Since I don't want to be obtuse (although I don't think I was at all) I've come up with a thesis that may help:
Democracy in America has become a tawdry and petty thing because many voters are more concerned about hair styles and demeanor -- whether a candidate is "likeable" or not -- than they are about the actual merits of a candidate to perform the duties and responsibilities required of them.
To be frank, I really don't care whether the apathetic vote or not. It's probably better that people who don't really feel like voting don't vote; because they're likely the ones who choose their candidate based upon such trivial nonsense as whether they like or dislike the tone of voice the person uses. They're the ones who choose a candidate based upon whether they dislike the way a candidate says "lockbox."
Oh what a tawdry, petty thing this democracy has become... I don't know whether you intended it or not, but your post is brilliantly ironic about the dismal state of our democracy.
Where people more interested in the tone of voice than the ideas. Where people more interested in hair styles than Social Security. Where people who would rather feel as if they were just consuming another product they may judge by the pretty packaging and ad campaign.
Don't even start thinking I'm defending the Clinton administration as a whole. Trade missions were, and are a small part of the corporate welfare system that Reagan, Bush, Clinton and this excuse for a president have all used. They should be done away with--I'm glad you seem to agree on that. And I definitely think that the campaign finance system should be dramatically reformed; it no longer works. But that's not what we were talking about, now was it?
I guess you'd like to think that the "boom" was some kind of mass hypnotism that Clinton's wagging mouth invoked upon us all. But that doesn't change any of the numbers that were in my original post (released by governmental agencies).
And whether you like it or not, these are the same kind of sources that Cato used for their processed report you seem to put so much credence in.
And as for Novak; I think it's okay to wear your heart on your sleeve in an editorial. It's okay to express your opinion as a journalist where it's appropriate. It's not okay to present your opinions as objective reporting. It's not okay to present yourself as a news organization or a journalist when your objective is not clarity, but rather persuasion.
Are you blaming Clinton for "overstating the strength of the economy" (according to that oracle of truth, Robert Novak), or for the greed of corporate executives and MBAs that caused the stock market to crash? What does one have to do with the other?
Do you know what you're talking about?
You know it's just sad to read stuff like this. It's sad to see how desperate people on the right are to find someone else to blame for the blight both Bush presidencies have been. At least when Clinton was around, you had someone to blame. Although after spending 25 million tax dollars investigating him, the only thing they could blame him for was being a bad husband.
This is nothing personal against you, but your post is simply rhetoric. It's a hoax in writing. Go and find something that connects the Clinton administration with dubya's friend over at Enron, "kenny-boy" Lay. Go and find something that connects the Clinton administration with the overvaluation of stocks or with anything having to do with the rampant greed of investment companies recommending unwitting investors purchase overvalued stocks while they reap the benefits of those sales. Go find anything that connects Clinton with the accountants who were being paid to look the other way.
And using Robert Novak as a reference? Please. That's right up there with using Fox News. Try using a reference that actually has some merit. Read my post for an example.
Let's get a real estimate of how well economies can work without looting the wealth of future generations:
How did things look under Clinton?
Unemployment
4.3 percent unemployment -- the lowest peacetime rate since 1957. The unemployment rate has stayed below 5 percent for 24 months in a row. [Bureau of Labor Statistics, 7/2/99]
Income
Typical family income was up $3,517 (8.6 percent) from 1993 to 1997. Median family income increased from $41,051 in 1993 to $44,568 in 1997. [Money Income in the United States: 1997, Bureau of the Census, 9/24/98]
Wages
Under President Clinton and Vice President Gore, real wages rose 6.2 percent compared to declining 4.3 percent during the Reagan and Bush years. After adjusting for inflation, wages increased almost 2.7 percent in 1998 -- the fastest real wage growth in more than two decades and the third year in a row and the longest sustained growth since the early 1970s. [Bureau of Labor Statistics, 7/2/99]
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, those foreign people are just trying to subvert and destroy 'merika so that they can take away the 'merikans God given right to have MARKET SHARE.
THEY ARE TERRORISTS!!!! WE MUST LIBERATE THEM!!!
This has to be one of the most blatant examples of how ugly the Ugly American has become. Sorry fella, because a foreign government doesn't bend over for their corporate master (a la prezitend bush), it doesn't mean they're out to destroy Microsoft.
It's called a "law." Maybe you remember that from a few years back. I know, I know hasn't been much use of those things for about 4 years now, but I'm sure you can remember them.
The chairman's job is to coordinate and get candidates elected. Dean proved that he's very good at doing this. Dean's Internet fundraising and the Democracy for America organization proves just how well suited Dean is for the position.
North Korea and Cuba show just how tired and wrong this "Ronald Reagan was right" crap is. A state, no matter how poor it may be can run a long, long time so long as those in power do not want change.
Sorry to break it to you, fanboy, but Gorbachev and his policy of Perestroika were responsible for what ultimately happened in the Soviet Union, not Ronald Reagan.
Sorry, but you've still not addressed the point of the post; the fact is you can buy from anyone else in town. Apple only owns the distribution channel, not the songs. And by no means are you locked into that distribution channel.
Like I said, it would make sense if Apple had some kind of ownership rights of the content and weren't allowing anyone else to provide the same content in other formats, but it's just silly to think that Apple should "Open" their distribution channel to competitors.
This is just silly. It's like getting mad at Blockbuster because they don't license every other video rental place in town to use the Blockbuster retail outlets to sell their own movies.
Your argument would almost even make sense if iPod only played music purchased through Apple's iTunes music store. But, the fact is, you can play whatever you want on the hardware (Sorry, Ogg has its place and purposes, but really isn't all that relevant for consumer music playback).
Apple doesn't own the music, they own the distribution chain. That's all. If you don't like Blockbuster, then you go down the street and buy movies from someone else. Likewise, if you don't like Apple, don't buy. Go buy the same content distributed through another source.
Apple doesn't guard any doors except to the end-to-end system which they created themselves. They keep no one from creating their own parallel system; Apple "owns" none of the music, nor controls the distribution of content in any other medium.
If you don't want to play the game, then don't. Go get yourself a copy of emule, start feeling 1337 and pat yourself on the back, man; you're sticking it to the man (Artist? What artist?).
The issue regarding running up2date, or any package management system on hundreds of VPS systems is that it either takes a herculean effort to coordinate updates so they don't run at the same time, and don't interfere with client activities (a schedule which constantly needs to be rescheduled because customers come and go...), or you need to have disk I/O capable of handling that many concurrent updates. Even with six 15K SCSI disks in RAID 10, there's no way our servers could handle that many concurrent updates.
It's not so much an issue of whether it can be done--we have clients who run yum--but whether it's practical for us to implement the system.
It simply can't be done.
In my opinion, up2date has more in common with Microsoft's Windows Update utility than it does with apt-get. We don't need users to have latest versions; we can provide for that through other methods. We need to be able to install custom binaries and dependencies quickly and easily for customers wanting special applicatiosn. Having the latest versions installed is a beneficial byproduct of apt, but just isn't our primary requirement.
Thanks for the pointsers. The problem is, we're using RedHat 9 servers with RedHat 7.3 and Fedora Core 2 VPS servers on top of that.
Package managers just aren't an option most of the time because of the lack of support for older OS libs and the different versions that we need to maintain.
up2date isn't even close to being an option for us, and we simply can't handle doing yum updates in the environment we have. Envision trying to run yum on hundreds of virtual servers at the same time... now envision load averages above 40 for hours... days...
I know there are alternatives to straight rpm hell, but the fact is, they aren't well integrated into these systems. I know for certain using FreeBSD ports or packages would work better than what we have. I also know that having a well integrated package manager like apt would really make all the diffference when dealing with custom installations for clients.
At the end of the day, we've got to deal with a lot of additional requirements that make utilizing the "add on" package managers just impossible.
RPM is the end to end system I have to deal with every single day on RedHat systems. That's the beginning, the middle and the end of it.
I like URPMI, it does its job well. And sure, i'm comparing apples to apple trees, but in the end, it's a tangent of the whole rambling post that really isn't relevant to the point. Yes, it's RPM vs Deb, but in essence, deb and apt always go together, while RPM exists as a living hell of its own on the RedHat systems I work with every day.
Like I said, I still love Mandrake. I think the tools that Mandrake adds to the system shine far above and beyond anything else out there.
Thanks for the pointer to apt4rpm, very much appreciated.
yes master!
Don't get me wrong.
I work with Linux every day. Day in, day out. I know how to use Linux. I know FreeBSD. I know OpenBSD.
I love KDE, and Umbuntu is my current favorite desktop distro (sorry Mandrake, I still love you, but RPM vs Apt...).
But, when I need to get work done, I know I can rely on my Mac. No questions.
I tell you what, Linux can almost compete with windows for desktop usability. Theres still some rough edges. Still some uniformity issues that make it less than desirable for novice users, and still many application issues that make it unusable in many production environments (of course anyone who need a computer to write documents, e-mails and do web-research has the perfect solution in Linux).
Linux isn't the solution for the home user that just wants to use their own computer. Maybe that's the way it should be; the i386 platform, and its hodgepodge of vendors, drivers, chipsets, etc. mean that there really can't be a software solution that can do anything nearly as well as OS X does.
Of course, the down side of it is, your old hardware becomes useless. The upside? You've got a system that works just like you expect it to. You've got a UNIX system with support from major softwre vendors. You've got a quality piece of hardware that retains its resale value much better than its PC counterpart (I sold my first Mac--a cube--for more than I bought it).
'
why is it that there's so many half-wits who wish they're funny?
why is it that every time I get mod points there's nothing like this around?
The support comment alone is truly insightful.
Aww, did I hurt your feelings?
I guess it's kinda hard to read with your feelings all hurt and stuff. There, there... I know it's hard, but you can understand the post you replied to if you try real hard.
Go ahead, try reading it.
I won't misunderstimate you; I know you can, pal, just try.
This may be true, but I think the "young" in this case are young churchgoers.
This doens't preclude the original assessment that more young may have voted republican, but it's not the same traditional young voters that were counted on as a demographic group.
Rove's genius was bringing a whole group of voters that normally sit out simply because
1) no one thought that there were so many and
2) no one has been so openly willing to mix politics and religion.
So, although I don't disagree, I do think that you can look at that younger group as the same demographic group that was traditionally put into that category.
In other words, republicans didn't "win over" anybody. They just managed to capitalize on an untapped source of votes. By demonizing gays and gay marriage, they were able to turn out an amazing number of voters who didn't care about any other issue.
You're talking about a lot of capital investment just roaming around the park. I imagine your corp will already be putting the responsibility onto the client for return of an operational device.
It seems that the best way to recoup costs is not to buy some ruggedized, high-cost version of something that may or may not be popular. Think about the industry as a whole; you probably can't count on any end-user device being attractive to customers for more than a year. There will always be newer and better to replace the older.
Just bulk buy the regular version of the device for a reduced price and rent a protective jacket as an additional cost.
This a) provides an additional revenue stream (think embroidered team logos and reselling your device for markup), and b) reaffirms to the client the idea that it is, in fact, their responsibility to return the device in good working order. Protective sleeves are easily replaceable by anyone. Rather than paying a tech lots of dollars to repair a ruggedized device, you can replace protective covers with minimal overhead.
Right. This post makes absolutely no sense.
This has to be the lamest Apple troll I've read in a long time.
But I've got an extra minute to waste.
Anyone who had been running a mac & was looking for the cheapest upgrade certainly wouldn't be buying a PC; the cost of re-buying the software for the other platform breaks the "bargain basement" computer argument.
And $300 for a "gaming" system with Dreamweaver and Photoshop? Right. If you said you were running FreeBSD or Linux, I might even have believed you.
And who needs monitors? Who needs a Windows license? Who needs antivirus scanners? Who needs Spyware checkers? Yeah, man -- who needs all the other stupid things you have to buy in order to get Windows running right.
Yeah, you go fan boy.
Go back to troll school
It says a lot about just how worried the MSFT corporate entity is about competing against Free software.
Microsoft needed a stalling tactic. Two years away from the next-gen OS, security problems riddling their current offerings, and Linux is picking up steam. They absolutely needed something like this. It may have been a "bad deal," but I'd say MSFT was never looking to profit from this investment.
If SCOX had actually won a case, it would have been a bonus, but that wasn't the point of the investment. MSFT wouldn't want anything out of this but to put off adoption until they could fill the gap left by their current offerings.
You might like to label it "elitism" or "liberalism" or "communism" or whatever other meaning eviscerating simplification you desire, but I'd say you've forgotten what this is all about. Democracy is not about agreement, but concessions and compromise.
You can decide that candidate A is too monotone for your vote.; that's your right. What am I going to do? Shake my head in shame -- for it's a shameful state of democratic government when people not only feel like they should vote for someone out of superficial considerations, but that they should also act as if it's normal. It's shameful that people generalize a very diverse set of people to the absolute lowest common denominator and then call that "popular." I'm going to talk about it. I'm going to point it out. And if you think that's elitist, than so be it.
And you might as well be saying that the democratic ideal is so 400BCE too; they are branches from the same tree. Equality and guarantees of protection to those without power by those with power is where they are both derived. Those who forged the democracy of this nation were the passe philosopher kings which gave up their individual power for the sake of all.
Since I don't want to be obtuse (although I don't think I was at all) I've come up with a thesis that may help:
Democracy in America has become a tawdry and petty thing because many voters are more concerned about hair styles and demeanor -- whether a candidate is "likeable" or not -- than they are about the actual merits of a candidate to perform the duties and responsibilities required of them.
To be frank, I really don't care whether the apathetic vote or not. It's probably better that people who don't really feel like voting don't vote; because they're likely the ones who choose their candidate based upon such trivial nonsense as whether they like or dislike the tone of voice the person uses. They're the ones who choose a candidate based upon whether they dislike the way a candidate says "lockbox."
Oh what a tawdry, petty thing this democracy has become... I don't know whether you intended it or not, but your post is brilliantly ironic about the dismal state of our democracy.
Where people more interested in the tone of voice than the ideas.
Where people more interested in hair styles than Social Security.
Where people who would rather feel as if they were just consuming another product they may judge by the pretty packaging and ad campaign.
Don't even start thinking I'm defending the Clinton administration as a whole. Trade missions were, and are a small part of the corporate welfare system that Reagan, Bush, Clinton and this excuse for a president have all used. They should be done away with--I'm glad you seem to agree on that. And I definitely think that the campaign finance system should be dramatically reformed; it no longer works. But that's not what we were talking about, now was it?
I guess you'd like to think that the "boom" was some kind of mass hypnotism that Clinton's wagging mouth invoked upon us all. But that doesn't change any of the numbers that were in my original post (released by governmental agencies).
And whether you like it or not, these are the same kind of sources that Cato used for their processed report you seem to put so much credence in.
And as for Novak; I think it's okay to wear your heart on your sleeve in an editorial. It's okay to express your opinion as a journalist where it's appropriate. It's not okay to present your opinions as objective reporting. It's not okay to present yourself as a news organization or a journalist when your objective is not clarity, but rather persuasion.
Your post makes no sense.
Are you blaming Clinton for "overstating the strength of the economy" (according to that oracle of truth, Robert Novak), or for the greed of corporate executives and MBAs that caused the stock market to crash? What does one have to do with the other?
Do you know what you're talking about?
You know it's just sad to read stuff like this. It's sad to see how desperate people on the right are to find someone else to blame for the blight both Bush presidencies have been. At least when Clinton was around, you had someone to blame. Although after spending 25 million tax dollars investigating him, the only thing they could blame him for was being a bad husband.
This is nothing personal against you, but your post is simply rhetoric. It's a hoax in writing. Go and find something that connects the Clinton administration with dubya's friend over at Enron, "kenny-boy" Lay. Go and find something that connects the Clinton administration with the overvaluation of stocks or with anything having to do with the rampant greed of investment companies recommending unwitting investors purchase overvalued stocks while they reap the benefits of those sales. Go find anything that connects Clinton with the accountants who were being paid to look the other way.
And using Robert Novak as a reference? Please. That's right up there with using Fox News. Try using a reference that actually has some merit. Read my post for an example.
Let's get a real estimate of how well economies can work without looting the wealth of future generations:
How did things look under Clinton?
Unemployment
4.3 percent unemployment -- the lowest peacetime rate since 1957. The unemployment rate has stayed below 5 percent for 24 months in a row. [Bureau of Labor Statistics, 7/2/99]
Income
Typical family income was up $3,517 (8.6 percent) from 1993 to 1997. Median family income increased from $41,051 in 1993 to $44,568 in 1997. [Money Income in the United States: 1997, Bureau of the Census, 9/24/98]
Wages
Under President Clinton and Vice President Gore, real wages rose 6.2 percent compared to declining 4.3 percent during the Reagan and Bush years. After adjusting for inflation, wages increased almost 2.7 percent in 1998 -- the fastest real wage growth in more than two decades and the third year in a row and the longest sustained growth since the early 1970s. [Bureau of Labor Statistics, 7/2/99]
Subtle... now that's irony.
I guess my humor was a little too subtle.
When speaking HTML, use a < for |337 5p3a|<
or else you will loose your bracket!!!!!1!!11!!!!!!!