So far the sorry state of the economy has Republicans worried, and it even appears to be unnverving President W., who doesn't appear to have an economic team in place to address the multiple problems the nation is facing. Paul O'Neill should resign BEFORE the fall elections, as should Lawrence Lindsay and Mitch Daniels. There are competent Republicans out there--is Douglas Dillon totally in his dotage?--who could help the administration craft a more effective policy than the ones they've got.

Neither Bush nor Cheney has much credibility on corporate governance, so both should cease speaking about this topic completely. Allow other Republicans with better records to champion the soundness of corporate America.

BTW--here's a piece on more Enron and Halliburton links to the Bush/Cheney campaign in 2002:

From Joe Conason's blog on today's SALON:

Aug. 5, 2002 | Flying Air Kennyboy
The president can still rely on most of the press to ignore or downplay embarrassing and even potentially explosive stories. Heeding a consensus that stories about the 2000 election are "old news," no matter how much new information they reveal, most news organizations devoted little attention to Bloomberg's superb story last Friday about the Enron, Halliburton and other corporate jets used by the Bush-Cheney campaign during the presidential recount struggle in Florida. (The fraudulent tale about Kenny Boy sleeping in the Lincoln Bedroom when Clinton was president got better play.)

Imagine the manufactured outrage if it were discovered that Al Gore had been chauffeured around on an Occidental
Petroleum jet, after all the wailing about his family's ties to that benighted firm. Guess what? Bloomberg News reports that the guest passengers on the Oxy jet were Bush-Cheney politicos. There are still more interesting nameson the list of companies that provided executive jets to the Bush effort in November 2000 aside from Enron and Halliburton. Among them are Reliant Energy, under federal investigation for manipulating energy prices in California; Anadarko Petroleum, whose executives enjoyed special entrÈe into Cheney's Energy Task Force; Tom Brown Inc., another oil outfit whose former CEO Donald Evans is now the Commerce Secretary; MBNA, the consumer-credit mammoth whose bankruptcy "reform" legislation is now being pushed by Bush; and, rather weirdly, Sallie Mae, the enormous financial services group that specializes in packaging and marketing government-backed student loans.

[ August 07, 2002: Message edited by: fantomas ]

The Dow fell below 8,000 today to 7,942, while NASDAQ is down to just over 1,200 and the S&P 500 is at 850 or so. Housing starts are down, companies continue to report weak earnings, and the fall shopping season was a bust.

Or to quote the AP report in today's NY Times:

"'All you see is negative news,' said Thomas F. Lydon Jr., president of Global Trends Investments in Newport Beach, Calif., citing an earnings warnings by Electronic Data Systems, disappointing results at Morgan Stanley, a weak housing report and the possibility of war with Iraq."

Just more proof that the President, with his MBA and lousy economic team, doesn't have a clue as to how to turn things around. They even have Greenspan shilling for those tax cuts, but to no avail. Thus this war is being foisted upon us--and it might send the economy into an even greater tailspin, because Iraq is not Afghanistan, and Saddam is not Mullah Omar (though he also got away).

[ September 19, 2002: Message edited by: fantomas ]

gee, what action could a country take that is almost always followed by economic boom... go to war??

There was a disturbing story in the NYTimes this morning about the new focus on oil in Africa as an alternative to the Middle East.

If the policies of this country there are determined by the same folks who guided the energy hunt in the middle east, what can we expect in Africa a decade or so from now?

I wonder if anyone in either party, or in the higher ups of industry, has a truly enlightened energy/economic policy..or intentions.

At some point we have to realize that everyone will benefit from more humane government throughout the world.

[quote]Originally posted by sportinlife:
There was a disturbing story in the NYTimes this morning about the new focus on oil in Africa as an alternative to the Middle East.

If the policies of this country there are determined by the same folks who guided the energy hunt in the middle east, what can we expect in Africa a decade or so from now?

---

Generally speaking, I don't see how Africa could get any worse than it is right now.

Shrub, President Cheney et al are to busy marketing their war to worry about the economy.
Karl Rove has been telling republicans for months that if this upcoming election is about war the republicans win, if its about the economy the Democrats win. Wow, what a suprise - after Dumbya took a month off its all war all the time.

White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card was asked why the administration waited until after Labor Day to try to sell the American people on military action against Iraq. Card replied, `From a marketing point of view, you don't introduce new products in August.'

[quote]Originally posted by RazorbackTX:
Shrub, President Cheney et al are to busy marketing their war to worry about the economy.
Karl Rove has been telling republicans for months that if this upcoming election is about war the republicans win, if its about the economy the Democrats win. Wow, what a suprise - after Dumbya took a month off its all war all the time.

White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card was asked why the administration waited until after Labor Day to try to sell the American people on military action against Iraq. Card replied, `From a marketing point of view, you don't introduce new products in August.'

---

For most of August, Democrats said Bush needed to "make his case for attacking Iraq" - i.e., market the war. They said the UN needed to be involved. In high-minded agreement with (as the media puts it) "members of the President's own party," the Dems urged Bush to consult with Congress before pursuing any action. Now that Bush is making his case, involving the UN and consulting with Congress, Dems say that making the case, involving the UN and consulting Congress are but crass political ploys to distract the nation from other issues. Lovely.

And anyway, by accusing Bush of using the war to distract from other issues, it is Democrats who are politicizing the war effort.

Bush has still not made a compelling case for starting this war NOW. There is no prima facie evidence that Iraq poses an immediate threat to us.

Since Rove planted the idea of using war as a key issues for the 2002 elections, I think that the GOP is attempting to use the only issue where they have clear advantage over the Democrats.

The economy is tanking, health costs are rising, people are worried about their jobs, investors are losing money in the stock exchange-- of course they want to change the subject.

All matters are now political, evidence Card's rather cynical characterization of the increased focus on Iraq. Another point-- where was Dubya last night ? At a Republican fund-raiser. In 1962, when JFK faced a REAL crisis, he suspended all political activities after providing proof of the danger.

The 2002 Democrats may be politicizing issues as well- the difference is that they are not doing so by putting young lives in harms way.

[quote]Originally posted by William1865:
And anyway, by accusing Bush of using the war to distract from other issues, it is Democrats who are politicizing the war effort.

---

Did you hear about Karl Rove's Power Point presentation? The one that said "focus on war" or have you paid any attention to what he has been telling republicans? Wake up William, its not the Democrats who are politicizing this, its the republicans and lets face it, its working for them.

What does immediate threat mean? Should we wait till Saddam nukes Israel or other allies? Perhaps then there would be more support for ousting Saddam, who for more than 10 years has been playing cat and mouse w/weapons inspections.

Of course politics is a factor in the equation, but I get a kick out those posting here getting their panties in a wad...as if Republicans are the only ones playing politics.

Give the Bush credit, he steamrolled the Democrats on the economy, health care, and many other issues. Clinton did the same thing with the Repubs when he was president. I don't remember hearing the whining chorus about playing politics then.

Then again, it seems when Dems play games it's okay...when the tables are turned then it becomes a problem.

[quote]Originally posted by m1011:
Bush has still not made a compelling case for starting this war NOW. There is no prima facie evidence that Iraq poses an immediate threat to us.

---

Yeah, let's wait until a nuke is actually headed toward us and then take action. Besides, this is proof of the absurdity of the whole "Bush hasn't made the case" thing. Lefties only demand that Bush make the case so they can then say his efforts to make the case are inadequate. It's just a standard that can be changed at any moment. And por Democrat politicians, the "make the case" routine is political - i.e. politicizing the war - because it allows them to take some pseudo-position while not actually alienating voters with an actual stand.

[quote]Originally posted by m1011:
All matters are now political, evidence Card's rather cynical characterization of the increased focus on Iraq. Another point-- where was Dubya last night ? At a Republican fund-raiser. In 1962, when JFK faced a REAL crisis, he suspended all political activities after providing proof of the danger.

---

I wonder if Kennedy told his defense team to reach him on his cell if anything important came up. Of course not, because they didn't have cell phones back then, or any of the numerous technological advances over the past 40 years that allow a President to rub his belly and pat his head at the same time.

But what could come up, anyway? You just said we're in no immediate danger.

[quote]Originally posted by Paktjock:
What does immediate threat mean? Should we wait till Saddam nukes Israel or other allies? Perhaps then there would be more support for ousting Saddam, who for more than 10 years has been playing cat and mouse w/weapons inspections.

Of course politics is a factor in the equation, but I get a kick out those posting here getting their panties in a wad...as if Republicans are the only ones playing politics.

Give the Bush credit, he steamrolled the Democrats on the economy, health care, and many other issues. Clinton did the same thing with the Repubs when he was president. I don't remember hearing the whining chorus about playing politics then.

Then again, it seems when Dems play games it's okay...when the tables are turned then it becomes a problem.

---

I dont think anyone is suggesting that Democrats dont play politics too, thats a given, both parties do it. There is a huge difference in playing politics with 250,000-500,000 troops than playing politics with some domestic issue such as welfare reform ect.

Also, I find it interesting that you guys who want to start a war in Iraq with the excuse that we cant "wait" until Sadam uses nukes. It makes no sense, the other two "axis of evil" countries have nukes, we know that for sure, why dont we just go after all of them? Shoud we "wait" around on them or just start the bombing?

[quote]Originally posted by RazorbackTX:



I dont think anyone is suggesting that Democrats dont play politics too, thats a given, both parties do it. There is a huge difference in playing politics with 250,000-500,000 troops than playing politics with some domestic issue such as welfare reform ect.

Also, I find it interesting that you guys who want to start a war in Iraq with the excuse that we cant "wait" until Sadam uses nukes. It makes no sense, the other two "axis of evil" countries have nukes, we know that for sure, why dont we just go after all of them? Shoud we "wait" around on them or just start the bombing?

---

Just start the bombing. No, really, one day at a time, Raze. One day at a time. There's only so much warmongering we Republicans can do in a 24-hour news cycle.

I take it "some domestic issue" like welfare reform doesn't REALLY affect hundreds of thousands of people. Geez.

I wish we could do a merge-perge of this thread with the rather breathless "Bush Came Up With War Plans Two Years Ago! TWO YEARS, I tell ya!" or whatever the other thread is. It seems the lefties are simultaneously (I love that word) arguing that the war on Iraq is a desperate political move to control Congress AND a coldly-calculated imperialist plot to control the world. Who knew?

[quote]I take it "some domestic issue" like welfare reform doesn't REALLY affect hundreds of thousands of people. Geez

---

Tsk. Tsk. Surely, there's a difference between reduced welfare checks and getting your guts spilled all over the desert because they've been shredded by machine gun fire? Isn't there? Or are you *gasp* engaging in moral relativisim. For shame.

I'm just saying that Democrats cannot simultaneously (oooh, yeah!) make the argument that debating a possible war should be of less importance that "some domestic issue" like welfare reform which, as you seem to admit, dwarf in comparison to military action. So obviously we need a thorough debate on Iraq, even if it means putting off some domestic issues until the next Congress.

But inasmuch as I believe we need to continue the successful welfare reforms passed by a Republican Congress and grudgingly signed into law by Klin-ton (thank goodness some issues become politicized), then I agree with Raze that the Senate should take immediate action to keep these reforms in place.

[quote]Originally posted by William1865:
But inasmuch as I believe we need to continue the successful welfare reforms passed by a Republican Congress and grudgingly signed into law by Klin-ton (thank goodness some issues become politicized), then I agree with Raze that the Senate should take immediate action to keep these reforms in place.

---

Clinton did NOT "grudgingly" sign into law welfare reforms. He eagerly pressed the case for the inadequate series of reforms enacted under the name of "welfare reform," and stated rather unequivocally that he would end "welfare as we know it."

That said, someone had better remind W. that war or no war, the economy is slipping into recession, and all the endless cheerleading and attempts to paint a rosier picture of the situation are not working. Does Wolfowitz or Perle or Rice have a plan for the economy that one or all of them drew up a few years ago?

Well, I don't know about that take on things. Basically, welfare was a mess, a crazy dysfunctional mess that for a very long time nobody was happy with and everybody thought had to change. Clinton's "ending welfare as we know it" was just an applause line in his SoU speech. I don't think he had any idea it would ignite such a tinder box. Still, Clinton should be credited for making the statement. Good for him for using the bully pulpit to effect change. But let's not give the man credit undeserved -- Clinton had no specific plan for welfare reform. The specifics were all hashed out in Congress. Whether Republicans or Dems should get credit for it is just petty partisan bickering.

The NASDAQ fell to a six year low yesterday while the bushies were busy marketing/beating the war drums.

"Focus on war"
Karl Rove

The NASDAQ fell to a six-year low? Gee, that would have nothing to do with the profligate overspending of the 1990s, the notorious dot-BOMB, and this week's arrest of the former Adelphia head honchos, would it?? In other words, the NASDAQ is where it's at right now thanks to horrible mismanagement, corporate greed & corruption, and good old-fashioned stupidity. I'm confident that the tech sector will eventually turn itself around, but it will have to do so on its own and it's going to take time. I don't believe government intervention is necessary, or even desirable. A little laissez-faire is called for here.

Besides, if you look at P/E ratios and all the rational measures by which stocks should be valued, the NASDAQ was absurdly overvalued for years. Now that investors no longer have dollar signs in their eyes and their feet are back on the ground, the NASDAQ has to come back to Earth too.

Also, let's not forget that the President of the United States, as powerful as he is, is NOT The Great and Powerful Oz when it comes to the nation's economy. If you look at the boom of the 1990s, who/what gets credit? If you say Clinton, uh, spare me. Far and away, the primary driver for the boom of the past decade was technology. Greenspan's management of the Federal Reserve gets a distant 2nd, and Clinton gets an even more distant 3rd. Mind you, I give full credit to Clinton for two things: the courageous 1993 budget agreement and NOT raising taxes left, right, and center (as Dems are wont to do).

The economic malaise we're suffering right now was our own doing. Recovering from it will have to be our own doing as well. The Fed rate is already at rock-bottom, and frankly, there's not a whole lot more the President can do to rev up the economy right now. Don't expect government to solve all your problems for you.

[quote]Originally posted by BoSoxRudy:
Don't expect government to solve all your problems for you.

---

Where did this come from? I dont expect govt. to solve "all my problems" and if I did I certainly wouldnt expect it from those in charge of this government. I know they are to busy with other things to pay attention to domestic issues.

"Focus on war"
Karl Rove

[quote]I'm confident that the tech sector will eventually turn itself around, but it will have to do so on its own and it's going to take time

---

I'm saying this with geniune curiosity, not hostility (honest!): Why do you think that? It's taken such a stomping that it seems like it might be a decade before it's back in the game.

[quote]Originally posted by BoSoxRudy:
[QB A little laissez-faire is called for here.
***
If you look at the boom of the 1990s, who/what gets credit? If you say Clinton, uh, spare me. Far and away, the primary driver for the boom of the past decade was technology
***
The economic malaise we're suffering right now was our own doing. Recovering from it will have to be our own doing as well. The Fed rate is already at rock-bottom, and frankly, there's not a whole lot more the President can do to rev up the economy right now. Don't expect government to solve all your problems for you.[/QB]

---

No one, least of all me, expects "government" or "the government" to solve all my problems. At the same time, there ARE things the government, led by the President, could be doing right now, but since you believe that there's nothing to be done, I guess you'd make a good candidate for the current administration's economic staff. Try as you and other conservatives might, you cannot strip away all the success of Clinton's tenure. It is telling that although both Bush AND Clinton inherited stalling economies, Clinton figured out a way to press through changes to turn things around, while Bush--in 2 years, no less--has done little except reward his wealthy supporters. Today, the Census bureau announced the poverty rose last year, and the median income fell, while the DJIA also fell to its lowest levels in 6 years--and not completely on the weakness of telecoms or corporate malfeasance either. Let's see how long W. stays this course....

Today's economic news:

Yesterday the Dow hit a 4 year low
Consumer confidence fell for the 4th straight month
Poverty rate is up
Household income is down

Lets see, hmmmmmmmmmmmm, should we beat the war drums a bit louder or is it time for another tax cut?

Raze, you're right on target. From today's Washington Post:

In President's Speeches, Iraq Dominates, Economy Fades

By Dana Milbank
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, September 25, 2002; Page A01

As he seeks to boost Republican candidates in the midterm elections, President Bush is increasing his emphasis on terrorism and national security, shedding his previous determination to demonstrate his concern about the flagging economy.

Four times in the past two days, Bush has suggested that Democrats do not care about national security, saying on Monday that the Democratic-controlled Senate is "not interested in the security of the American people." His remarks, intensifying a theme he introduced last month, were quickly seconded and disseminated by House Majority Whip Tom DeLay (R-Tex.).

At a fundraiser for GOP House candidate Adam Taff in Kansas Monday, Vice President Cheney said security would be bolstered if Taff were to defeat Rep. Dennis Moore (D-Kan.). "Cheney talks about Iraq at congressional fund-raiser/ Electing Taff would aid war effort," read the headline in the Topeka Capital-Journal.

Such rhetoric represents something of a shift for the administration. When there were marked signs of the economy stumbling in the summer, Bush spoke daily about the economy's health to demonstrate his concern. In recent days, however, the proportion of Bush's stump speech devoted to domestic concerns has slipped from about 50 percent to about 20 percent.

The shift has come despite a flood of grim new economic statistics. The Dow Jones industrial average fell yesterday to its lowest level in four years, and the Nasdaq composite index hit a six-year low as consumer confidence and corporate earnings slipped.

When Bush kicked off his effort this month to build support for an Iraq campaign, his aides angrily dismissed accusations that they had a political motive, saying that the timing, two months before the Nov. 5 election, was coincidental. But as Bush continues his record-setting fundraising effort, he has shown an eagerness to discuss the topic in political venues as polls show the effort is aiding Republican candidates."

(The rest of the article is available on the Washington Post Website)

What was in this post? Why was it edited?

Edited by Tarkus to remove lengthy double post.

[ September 25, 2002: Message edited by: Tarkus ]

[ September 26, 2002: Message edited by: fantomas ]

[quote]Originally posted by fantomas:
Try as you and other conservatives might, you cannot strip away all the success of Clinton's tenure. It is telling that although both Bush AND Clinton inherited stalling economies, Clinton figured out a way to press through changes to turn things around, while Bush--in 2 years, no less--has done little except reward his wealthy supporters.

---

OK, agreed, the '90s were a boom time. But pray tell, and specifically, how did Clinton figure out a way to press through changes to turn things around, and exactly what were those changes that he, not the Fed, market momentum or anyone else, made?

Day Two of the Credibility Crisis and still no response. Anyone "appalled?"

What "credibility crisis" are you talking about? W.'s?

To paraphrase Tom Daschle on a similar subject:
it is outraaaaageous OUTRAAAAAGEOUS that people are politiczing the debate over how to best improve the economy. OUTRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGEOUS!!!!!

Ah, you're awake! How about an answer to my Clinton question? Just what did HE do to work the Wirtschaftwunder that roused us from our economic slumbers in the '90s? You've had a full day to research an issue you seemingly know like the palm of your hand. How about a specific and factual response?

What Clinton did:
-signed the 1993 tax increase and pushed through spending caps to help end the budget deficit and then (conservatives decried this as sure disaster, and boy, were they proved wrong--for 8 YEARS!!!)
-pushed and signed off on debt reduction, to move the budget from deficit spending under Reagan and H.W. to RECORD surpluses
::the lessening deficits helped to ensure that foreign investment strengthened in the U.S., and that businesses could more easily borrow to expand, increase hiring, invest more
-expanded the earned income tax credit, to help redistribute some of the wealth creation downwards towards the poorest Americans
-pushed and signed off on NAFTA, which stripped away barriers involving our two major trading partners
-appointed two successive Secretaries of the Treasury who worked to ensure a smooth running of the U.S. economy through sound fiscal policy, consultation with the Republican Congress, and smooth interaction with the Fed and Wall Street
::Clinton's tight fiscal policy ALLOWED the Fed (Greenspan) to employ a looser monetary policy; the credit is not Greenspan's alone, and this led to many liberals criticize Clintonomics as too conservative
-helped to create the WTO, which had a positive impact on global trade
-selected members of the Federal Reserve Board who worked closely with Greenspan to keep interest rates and keep inflation down
-pushed through a series of targeted tax cuts and tax relief, which benefitted not only the richest Americans but also middle-class and working-class consumers
-proposed in 1998 that Congress NOT use the surplus for massive pro-rich tax cuts until it had saved Social Security, thus helping to retire over $700 billion of the National Debt
-pushed through the Mexican bailout, helping to stabilize a major trading partner, as well as bailouts to Korea

As a liberal, I have many issues with a number of Clinton's actions, but I can say that Clinton did preside over 8 years of economic prosperity. Things have only worsened--WORSENED--under Bush.

There now, that wasn't hard now, was it? Cut and paste is a wonderful innovation, nicht wahr?* Very informative, should be helpful. Vielen Dank!
_______
*Citation(s) omitted.

Hey, you asked, you got an answer!
The economy has tanked under Dumbya and all he can do is market/beat the war drums.


"Focus on war"
Karl Rove

[quote]Originally posted by gmginsfo:
There now, that wasn't hard now, was it? Cut and paste is a wonderful innovation, nicht wahr?* Very informative, should be helpful. Vielen Dank!
_______
*Citation(s) omitted.

---

As usual, patronizing tones from one of the...other side! William, where are you when we need you? Some levity please? Gmginsfo, dieses ist das Sie bedeutete, nein? Bedeuten Sie mehr? Haben Sie die Wahrheit des Clintonomics nicht gern? Ach, die Konservativen gebt ihn keine Liebe.... Sorry, haven't studied German since 11th grade. (Thanks, Raze, for adding some sanity.)

[ September 26, 2002: Message edited by: fantomas ]

Many of us had issues with Clinton for his personal behaviors, but, both domestically and globally he improved our country's standing - that the Republicans chose to pursue and prosecute every single thing they could possibly create from second one of Clinton's administration was their expensive and disappointing choice. He still served two terms with great results for the country. Bush is basically tanking. After 9/11, the administration knew they had the opportunity to increase their power and pretty much do what they want. They're well on their way. Thank god Daschle, anyone, is speaking up...the administration is on a slippery and dangerous slope - our standing in the world has already been terribly damaged. It'll take an entirely new administration years to repair. The War with Osama and his bunch is hardly won but we're ready to start another one with the senior Mr. Bush's arch enemy. Our economy is a disaster; it's only getting worse. Yep, Bush is doing a great job...but at what? Destroying the country? Hopefully, the result from the war with Osama will be successful...it'd be nice if the country could get back on stable ground.

fantomas, I never meant to discredit Clinton's contributions to the economic boom, merely putting him in the proper hierarchy of credit for the prosperity of the 1990s. I still maintain that the stunning advances in technology contributed far more to the decade's economic good times. Also, the recession began and ended during Bush the 41st's tenure. Since there was positive economic growth in the 1st quarter of 1993, Clinton did not "inherit" a recession. By the way, I voted for Clinton in 1992 and am damn glad I did. In terms of economic policy, Clinton was basically a moderate Republican (didn't go around levying taxes or imposing restrictions and regulations on business).

How now, Razorback, piling on? Not very sporting, what? Where were YOU while my question went unanswered? Who's next, the JIPper?

I do appreciate the answer, though. It's always a revelation to see just how capable the "other side" is of deluding itself.

To be completely honest, presidents rarely deserve much credit or blame for economic downturns or upturns. Clinton did do a few things right (the 1993 tax increase and treating Alan Greenspan like the god he is are two of the best), but government at its best can only try to nudge the economy - its kind of like herding cats.

That being said, responses to economic crises are where the government can have a dramatic effect (e.g., FDR and the Depression, he didn't do anything sophisticated, but the economy was so bad that doing anything was positive). That is where I am concerned about our current "administration." There does not seem to be a coherent plan to revitalize the economy, and trying to cut taxes more, when we're already facing huge budget deficits, does not make sense. In some way a war with Iraq might stimulate the economy, as governments can do a lot of good by spending, but I don't think that is a reason to go to war.

thank you, CPT, for your reasoned response, the first one to criticize Bush in this thread without being blindly partisan. We live in a free society, with a free market. And one of the characteristics of a free market is that government is not The Great and Powerful Oz when it comes to the economy.

For what it's worth, prior to 9/11 I actually completely denounced W, vowed to vote against him in 2004, and work as a campaign volunteer for his opponent regardless of who it turned out to be ... well, um, except for that awful Al Bore. Al, two words of advice for ya, pal: private citizen. Two more words: try it.

[quote]Originally posted by bryan d.:
it'd be nice if the country could get back on stable ground.

---

Our country is on incredibly stable ground. This statement - no offense, bryan, it's not your fault - just shows how incredibly jaded we've become. I mean, the Civil War, the Great Depression - we were on pretty unstable ground then. But now? Come on. We're fine.

[quote]Originally posted by gmginsfo:
How now, Razorback, piling on? Not very sporting, what? Where were YOU while my question went unanswered? Who's next, the JIPper?

---

Assuming this is referring to me, sorry, but I can't help you. You're the expert on avoiding questions, as far as I can tell from past experience.

Awww, Joe. I KNEW you'd remember - and get the message wrong.