|
|
| Post Number: 11
|
jimhanson 
Group: Moderator
Posts: 8491
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
 |
Posted on: Sep. 23 2003,8:21 am |
|
   |
Jump on it! If you have insider knowledge, here's your chance to make big bucks--in fact, if ALL of the conspiracy theorists do the same, they will bid up demand for the stock--far above the actual net worth of the company--kind of the "dot.com" bubble that buoyed the stock market to unrealistic highs during the Clinton years! 
--------------
"If you want to anger a Conservative, tell him a lie. If you want to anger a LIBERAL, tell him the TRUTH!"
|
 |
|
|
| Post Number: 12
|
Liberal
Group: Moderator
Posts: 11451
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Sep. 23 2003,9:03 am |
|
 |
I don't have any insider knowledge. I was just pointing out that your previous post was just more rightwing spin when
you said Halliburton stock hasn't gone up in value and that no big institutional investors were recommending it.
Not only has Halliburton gone up it's doubled in value in the last 12 months. And as far as you not seeing anyone recommending it here is a link to the morningstar analyst opinions.
Morningstar Analysts opinion on Halliburton
Out of 23 analysts
10 say it's a BUY
04 say it's an OUTPERFORM
07 say it's a HOLD
01 say it's an Underperform
01 say it's a SELL
ok, now that we know that the stock is recommened by the vast majority of analysts and that it's doubled in price in the last 12 months are you willing to admit that what you posted yesterday was just more rightwing spin?
--------------
The people are masters of both Congress and courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert it!
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 13
|
jimhanson
Group: Moderator
Posts: 8491
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Sep. 23 2003,9:44 am |
|
|
Try this chart on Haliburton--comparing Haliburton with the Dow Jones Industrial Average from Jan. 1992 to the present. chart
Haliburton stock closely follows the Dow until about 1997-98 (Clinton years), when it outperforms the Dow. It goes back to average again, until 2001, when it plummets--so much for Cheney's help from the Vice-presidency--he was much more effective at helping Haliburton by STAYING ON at Haliburton!) It is making a recovery now. Even with a falling Dow, it still outperformed Haliburton over the years. Note that as recently as a year ago, Haliburton was trading at about its 1972 price.
Edited by Admin on Sep. 23 2003,9:56 am
--------------
"If you want to anger a Conservative, tell him a lie. If you want to anger a LIBERAL, tell him the TRUTH!"
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 14
|
jimhanson
Group: Moderator
Posts: 8491
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Sep. 23 2003,10:06 am |
|
|
Trying again--doggone computers--the one in the front office can no longer find Javascript, the one in the back office is slow--so slow that Liberal jumped in here in front of me--and when I posted the response, it "supersized it"--cutting off the reference to the chart. Here it is again.
http://moneycentral.msn.com/investo....h+Chart
You have to be careful with charts, to review ALL the data. Yes, Halliburton is a buy NOW, but would anyone have wanted it over the 10-year average? How about just since the last presidential election? The Dow, even in the doldrums, outperformed it.
Edited by jimhanson on Sep. 23 2003,10:08 am
--------------
"If you want to anger a Conservative, tell him a lie. If you want to anger a LIBERAL, tell him the TRUTH!"
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 15
|
cpu_slave
Group: Members
Posts: 297
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Sep. 23 2003,2:32 pm |
|
|
Jim- like Letterman stated the other night, when you write the check, Halliburton is spelled with 2 L's. 
As far as it outperforming the dow, it sure did as it was using the cash made from government contracts to buy up other businesses. When you see the drop in price, it was about the time that Halliburton was settling asbestos lawsuits and doing a financial restructuring of the organization. Prices do not fluctuate without reason, but this is an entire different argument anyhow. I am also sure that with a $70 billion dollar influx of cash into the organization it will be posting earnings and the stock price will continue to grow. Don't worry, I already bought back in back in march.
I'm surprised that the only thing you commented on in this thread was the repost about Halliburton, but still glad you made time from your 'is Palestine real or not' argument to contribute.
Now I see the shrub stumping at the UN trying to get international help, but only if it done his way (deja-vu- did we not see the same thing early this year about the UN assisting us going to war?) While I am not in favor of just dropping Iraq into the UN's lap, I would like to see some relatively short time table on this, not just shrub's administration's attempts to draw out as much taxpayer cash to toss at this as they can.
--------------
An age is called Dark, not because the light fails to shine, but because people refuse to see it.-James A. Michener
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.-Albert Einstein
Wise men learn more from fools than fools from wise men.- Marcus Cato
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 16
|
jimhanson
Group: Moderator
Posts: 8491
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Sep. 23 2003,3:45 pm |
|
|
Now we have Edward Kennedy, the "hero of Chappaquiddic" (I was going to use "Great White"--like the shark in "Jaws"--but I didn't want people to confuse Kennedy with the band that killed nearly as many people as the Iraqi's did in the entire war) whining about Bush going to the United Nations. What IS it with this guy? First, he says, in effect, that no war is "legitimate" unless it is under the auspices of the pastel blue helmets, then, when Bush DOES go to the U.N., he whines about that, too! No matter what Bush does, you can be sure Kennedy is a'gin it!
I think Bush is making a big mistake going to the U.N.--it will be perceived as weak in the Arab world, and in the rest of the world. France, already miffed because they didn't get any of the rebuilding contracts, will once again attempt to be a "power broker".
Things in Iraq are not as bad as the talking heads at the networks would have us believe--as the link below, from Rep. Miller (DEMOCRAT-Georgia) mentions:
http://www.ajc.com/opinion....4896111
I'm all for a "Sherman's March Through Georgia" approach--go in hard, do what needs to be done, be hard but fair with the populace, and get out. I like CPU's formula--give them a couple of weeks to "declare peace", or we'll start all over again!
--------------
"If you want to anger a Conservative, tell him a lie. If you want to anger a LIBERAL, tell him the TRUTH!"
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 17
|
hoosier
Group: Members
Posts: 1476
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Sep. 23 2003,4:18 pm |
|
|
When it comes down to it, its all about politics. Jim, you are right, no matter what Bush does, Kennedy will be against it. But your post kind of reminds me of Shawn Hannity. You and Shawn seem to skip the fact that the Republicans play the same game you are pissed at the Demacrats for playing. Anything a Republican president does, the Demacrats will be against. Anything a Demacratic president does, the Republicans will be against. This might be a little off topic, but anything you can accuse the Demacrats of, the Republicans are guilty of also.
Bush might as well go to the UN now, I think he sees that his presidency has been one big cluster _ _ _ _ after another. Not that he is any different than any other president that came before him, but every decision he makes now takes into account one thing, REELECTION, period. We went to war to get peoples minds off the economy. If you dont believe that, then listen to what his number one advisor, Carl Rowe said.
"If this election is about the economy, we lose. If we make it about the war, we win."
I think that says it all. I am not a republican or demacrat, the die hard party liners in both parties make me want to puke. Having said that, Bush Jr. is going to go down as one of the most corrupt, over spending, threat to civil liberties administrations in the history of the U.S. Why is he going to the UN now? Because he thinks his reelection depends on it. The UN should all tell Bush and the US to go _ _ _ _ themselves. After all, isnt that what we told the UN, in so many words? Anyway, in my opinion, Bush went to the UN to save his @ss, but unless the economy gets a lot better in between now and election time, its going to be to little, to late.
--------------
The power of accurate obsvervation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it.
George Bernard Shaw
The devil begins with froth on the lips of an angel entering into battle for a holy and just cause. Grigory Pomerants
We have crossed the boundary that lies between Republic and Empire. Garet Garrett
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 18
|
jimhanson
Group: Moderator
Posts: 8491
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Sep. 23 2003,6:25 pm |
|
|
Perhaps a new slant in the discussion--how did we get this way? Was politics ALWAYS this partisan? Is it because in the pre-television era, politics was very localized? Is it because of shorter attention spans--people have to make their point in the first 15 seconds, or be lost to the television "clicker"? Is it an "unintended consequence" of campaign finance laws, resulting in few but more viscious ads, or "tell candidate ___ to stop...." ads? Is it more apparent in National elections than in State--or in Local? Was it this way in the 80s? The 70s? 60s? 50s? Can we/will we ever return to civility?
It seems that political campaigns have become less about IDEAS, and more about POSTURING. Less about PLATFORM, and more about 15-second sound bites. Less about INDIVIDUAL CHARACTER, and more about PACKAGING AND SELLING A CANDIDATE. Less about what is good for the COUNTRY, more about what is good for the PARTY. Less about budget FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY, and more about LOOK AT THE "PORK" I'VE BROUGHT HOME TO YOU!
--------------
"If you want to anger a Conservative, tell him a lie. If you want to anger a LIBERAL, tell him the TRUTH!"
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 19
|
hoosier
Group: Members
Posts: 1476
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Sep. 23 2003,6:41 pm |
|
|
When did it start to be like this? Thats a damn good question Jim. When did you notice things getting out of hand? The first president I can really say I knew anything about is Nixon. Not such a good start for my political interest. But then came Ford, who pardans Nixon. Fords excuse that the country had suffered enough is the first real bull$hit I had heard from a politician. If anyone here truely believes that Ford had anything in mind other than the Republican party when he made that decision, well, sorry, but you are an idiot. All these years later, after being lied to and over taxed by every politician that has followed, I cant stand any of em that have the word republican or demacrat in front of their name. To me, its almost like they are a party member first, an American second.
I also believe that Clintons impeachment was nothing more than pay back time for the republicans.
Anyway, Jim, as you are one of the old people here, , I just wondered when it was that you noticed a change in politics.
--------------
The power of accurate obsvervation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it.
George Bernard Shaw
The devil begins with froth on the lips of an angel entering into battle for a holy and just cause. Grigory Pomerants
We have crossed the boundary that lies between Republic and Empire. Garet Garrett
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 20
|
jimhanson
Group: Moderator
Posts: 8491
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Sep. 23 2003,7:25 pm |
|
|
I'd say that the 1960 election of Kennedy/(Nixon) was perhaps the last "civil" national election. Not coincidentally, it was the first televised debate, and one of the first to have big television media buys. It was incredibly close--but except for the normal Chicago/Mayor Daly political shennanigans that have become National lore--it was very civil.
Johnson/Goldwater saw the first of the "attack" ads--the nuclear explosion in a field of poppies. The 1968 election was even more slashing--as you might envision during the Vietnam war. Even primaries became vicious during the late 60s and 70s--attacks on Muskie brought a tear to his eye, and ended his Presidential campaign--Tom Eagleton was "outed" for seeking psychological help. After the strife of the early 70s, people sought "comfort", and Jimmy Carter provided it--a big grin, and nothing controversial. Perhaps because of his age--the Reagan campaign and debates were very hard-fought in the trenches, but very civil at the top--nothing much more controversial than "there you go again!". The Bush/Clinton and Dole/Clinton years were not overly contentious at the top--all parties wanted to look "Presidential"--but it is the first I can remember of the "issue" ads--the first "soft money" as defined in campaign reform--the first "tell to stop ....(doing what he is doing)". I believe that was the start of big media buys, shorter ads, more strident advertising--not by the top candidates, but by the parties, AND NEW PLAYERS--SINGLE ISSUE GROUPS. Abortion, gun rights, environment, free trade--each single issue advocacy group started making big media buys, as well.
This brings us to Bush/Gore--and the present time. We are all familiar with the tone and tenor of the last election. My prediction is that Campaign Finance reform will have the usual OPPOSITE effect of that intended. We will have more short ads, more "tagged" ads, where one candidate will tag another from the same party. We will have more thinly-veiled ads by advocacy groups supporting their normal constituency--The National Education Assn. for the D's, and The National Rifle Assn. for the R's, for example. It's going to be a tough election to watch.
I do believe that there is less development of IDEAS because of the need to "get the message out". (is it coincidental that the first of the short, hard-hitting, more strident ads coincided with the rise of MTV and dish/cable?) In "Olden Days" (you are NOT that much younger than me, Hoosier--you will be surprised how fast 10 or 15 years go by!) , the newspapers would take the time to publish entire platforms, and people would take the time to read them. Lamentably, not so today.
I'd be interested in the observations of other people on the forum--especially the other "elderly" posters--does anyone have one of these "emoticons" with a tear running down the cheek?)
Edited by jimhanson on Sep. 23 2003,7:38 pm
--------------
"If you want to anger a Conservative, tell him a lie. If you want to anger a LIBERAL, tell him the TRUTH!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
