The President of the United States
- Thread starter we3luvdisney
- Start date
richiebaseball
Disney? I'll go!
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2001
- Messages
- 1,670
Here's one you don't have to register for.
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20040720/bs_nm/economy_usa_poll_dc_2
NEW YORK (Reuters) - The U.S. economy will show solid growth this year as hiring picks up, but economists see slower growth and higher inflation than they did earlier in the year, a Reuters poll shows.
That makes for an awkward combination for the Federal Reserve (news - web sites), which is nevertheless expected to continue raising borrowing costs at a slow and steady pace through this year and 2005, according to a poll of 30 economists.
The broadest measure of economic output, gross domestic product, is forecast to rise 4.0 percent this year on an annual basis, down from 4.3 percent in the previous survey taken in April.
For 2005, growth forecasts edged up to 3.7 percent from 3.6 percent.
The recent weak patch of economic news for June, on consumer spending, employment and industrial production, has not dented most economists' view of an economy reaching cruising speed.
They see a solid expansion even though two big props of stimulus -- tax cuts and super-low interest rates -- have faded. Businesses have begun to take up the spending baton from tired and overextended consumers, whose outlays have supported the economy over the past three years, but who have accumulated high levels of debt.
"We are viewing the current slowdown as a temporary soft patch and the economy will come back. Income is going up faster than consumer spending, but the real heavy lifting is going to be done by business spending," said Sung Won Sohn, chief economist at Wells Fargo.
Until a few months ago, corporate America was keeping a tight rein on hiring and slowly ramping up investment. But that caution seems to have finally dissipated.
PRICING POWER IS BACK
The fly in the ointment of most forecasts, though, is the price of oil, which was the main cause of upside shocks on inflation in recent months.
Economists have ramped up their estimates for the consumer price index to 2.6 percent in 2004 and 2.4 percent next year, far above their estimates of 2.0 percent and 1.8 percent made just three months ago.
"All the signs are that firms are both willing and able to raise prices," said Deutsche Bank's chief economist, Peter Hooper.
Still, underlying inflation, which strips out food and energy costs, is expected to remain close to the zone of price stability between one percent and two percent this year, which should allow the Federal Reserve to maintain a "measured" pace of tightening.
The risk is that if oil shoots higher, those inflation forecasts will be thrown out of the window and the Federal Reserve will be faced with the twin problems of a contractional shock from higher oil prices and an inflation threat.
"The earlier increases in energy prices are cascading through the economy, and the price of everything from plastic toys to medicine is affected," said Sohn.
AT LONG LAST, JOBS
Employment, which was the missing link in the recovery until a few months ago, has improved as companies gained confidence in the recovery's staying power.
"Certainly all the surveys tell us firms are in hiring mode now," said Deutsche's Hooper.
This is essential to maintain momentum in the recovery, since incomes must keep rising to support consumer spending. So far, non-wage income has been strong, but wage growth has lagged and will need to rise to sustain consumer spending, which accounts for two-thirds of U.S. economic activity.
Analysts in the Reuters survey see only slight improvements in the unemployment rate, from June's 5.6 percent to 5.4 percent at the end of this year and 5.2 percent by mid-2005.
One of the factors slowing the improvement in the jobless rate is the likely return of discouraged workers who gave up searching for jobs during the downturn and hence were no longer counted by the official unemployment statistics.
As those people rejoin the work force, they will again be counted. The hope is that the economy can generate enough new jobs over coming years to get the unemployment rate back to the halcyon levels near four percent last seen during the high-tech boom.
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20040720/bs_nm/economy_usa_poll_dc_2
NEW YORK (Reuters) - The U.S. economy will show solid growth this year as hiring picks up, but economists see slower growth and higher inflation than they did earlier in the year, a Reuters poll shows.
That makes for an awkward combination for the Federal Reserve (news - web sites), which is nevertheless expected to continue raising borrowing costs at a slow and steady pace through this year and 2005, according to a poll of 30 economists.
The broadest measure of economic output, gross domestic product, is forecast to rise 4.0 percent this year on an annual basis, down from 4.3 percent in the previous survey taken in April.
For 2005, growth forecasts edged up to 3.7 percent from 3.6 percent.
The recent weak patch of economic news for June, on consumer spending, employment and industrial production, has not dented most economists' view of an economy reaching cruising speed.
They see a solid expansion even though two big props of stimulus -- tax cuts and super-low interest rates -- have faded. Businesses have begun to take up the spending baton from tired and overextended consumers, whose outlays have supported the economy over the past three years, but who have accumulated high levels of debt.
"We are viewing the current slowdown as a temporary soft patch and the economy will come back. Income is going up faster than consumer spending, but the real heavy lifting is going to be done by business spending," said Sung Won Sohn, chief economist at Wells Fargo.
Until a few months ago, corporate America was keeping a tight rein on hiring and slowly ramping up investment. But that caution seems to have finally dissipated.
PRICING POWER IS BACK
The fly in the ointment of most forecasts, though, is the price of oil, which was the main cause of upside shocks on inflation in recent months.
Economists have ramped up their estimates for the consumer price index to 2.6 percent in 2004 and 2.4 percent next year, far above their estimates of 2.0 percent and 1.8 percent made just three months ago.
"All the signs are that firms are both willing and able to raise prices," said Deutsche Bank's chief economist, Peter Hooper.
Still, underlying inflation, which strips out food and energy costs, is expected to remain close to the zone of price stability between one percent and two percent this year, which should allow the Federal Reserve to maintain a "measured" pace of tightening.
The risk is that if oil shoots higher, those inflation forecasts will be thrown out of the window and the Federal Reserve will be faced with the twin problems of a contractional shock from higher oil prices and an inflation threat.
"The earlier increases in energy prices are cascading through the economy, and the price of everything from plastic toys to medicine is affected," said Sohn.
AT LONG LAST, JOBS
Employment, which was the missing link in the recovery until a few months ago, has improved as companies gained confidence in the recovery's staying power.
"Certainly all the surveys tell us firms are in hiring mode now," said Deutsche's Hooper.
This is essential to maintain momentum in the recovery, since incomes must keep rising to support consumer spending. So far, non-wage income has been strong, but wage growth has lagged and will need to rise to sustain consumer spending, which accounts for two-thirds of U.S. economic activity.
Analysts in the Reuters survey see only slight improvements in the unemployment rate, from June's 5.6 percent to 5.4 percent at the end of this year and 5.2 percent by mid-2005.
One of the factors slowing the improvement in the jobless rate is the likely return of discouraged workers who gave up searching for jobs during the downturn and hence were no longer counted by the official unemployment statistics.
As those people rejoin the work force, they will again be counted. The hope is that the economy can generate enough new jobs over coming years to get the unemployment rate back to the halcyon levels near four percent last seen during the high-tech boom.
richiebaseball
Disney? I'll go!
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2001
- Messages
- 1,670
Here's another one.
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20040720/ts_afp/us_economy_bank_rates_040720193445
WASHINGTON (AFP) - Federal Reserve (news - web sites) chairman Alan Greenspan (news - web sites) said the US economy is in a broad, jobs-rich expansion and he could not rule out steeper-than-expected interest rate increases.
"Not only has economic activity quickened, but the expansion has become more broad-based and has produced notable gains in employment," Greenspan told a Senate banking panel as he delivered the central bank's semiannual economic outlook.
Strengthening demand, coupled with "transitory" factors such as sizzling energy prices, had pushed up inflation, which in turn led to a softness in the critical economic engine of consumer spending.
But that softness "should prove short-lived," the central bank chief said.
"With the growth of aggregate demand looking more sustainable and with employment expanding broadly, the considerable monetary policy accommodation put in place in 2001 is becoming increasingly unnecessary," he said.
Federal Reserve policymakers voted June 30 to raise the target for the federal funds rate, which commercial banks charge each other overnight, to 1.25 percent from a 1958 low of 1.00 percent.
It was the first rate rise in four years, kicking off what is widely expected to be a series of increases taking the key rate to about four percent by the end of 2005.
Federal Open Market Committee (news - web sites) (FOMC) members said rates would likely rise at a "measured" pace but stressed their readiness to act more swiftly if inflation ran out of control.
The statement was made in the light of "considerable uncertainty" over the outlook for price pressures, Greenspan said.
For the moment, moderately rising labor costs did not appear to threaten long-term price stability, he said. Prices seemed to have been tamed by global competition along with excess US capacity.
"But we cannot be certain that this benign environment will persist and that there are not more deep-seated forces emerging as a consequence of prolonged monetary accommodation," Greenspan warned.
As a result, he said, the bank would watch closely for warning signs of inflation.
The economy should adjust relatively smoothly if interest rates rise gradually, Greenspan said.
"Even if economic developments dictate that the stance of policy must be adjusted in a less gradual manner to ensure price stability, our economy appears to have prepared itself for a more dynamic adjustment of interest rates," he added.
"In either scenario, individual instances of financial strain cannot be ruled out."
The bond market sold off on the comment, pushing up the yield on 10-year Treasury bonds to 4.442 percent from 4.376 percent just before Greenspan began speaking.
Greenspan, who presented Congress with a semiannual economic report by the Federal Reserve, foresaw relatively solid economic prospects despite some recent signs of softness.
In June, employers hired 112,000 extra workers, fewer than half the number expected, retail sales fell by a seasonally adjusted 1.1 percent, and US industry cut output 0.3 percent.
In the report, the central bank only slightly trimmed a 2004 economic growth forecast.
The new forecast calls for 2004 real gross domestic product to expand in a range of 4.5 to 4.75 percent, just down from a previous forecast in February for growth of 4.5 to 5.0 percent.
The report predicted more moderate real GDP (news - web sites) growth of 3.5 to 4.0 percent for next year.
Prices paid by consumers, excluding food and energy, should rise by 1.75 to 2.0 percent this year, and 1.5 to 2.0 percent in 2005, it said. It was the first time the bank had provided a "core" personal consumption expenditure (PCE) forecast.
The forecasts were based on a comparison of the fourth quarter with the same period the previous year.
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20040720/ts_afp/us_economy_bank_rates_040720193445
WASHINGTON (AFP) - Federal Reserve (news - web sites) chairman Alan Greenspan (news - web sites) said the US economy is in a broad, jobs-rich expansion and he could not rule out steeper-than-expected interest rate increases.
"Not only has economic activity quickened, but the expansion has become more broad-based and has produced notable gains in employment," Greenspan told a Senate banking panel as he delivered the central bank's semiannual economic outlook.
Strengthening demand, coupled with "transitory" factors such as sizzling energy prices, had pushed up inflation, which in turn led to a softness in the critical economic engine of consumer spending.
But that softness "should prove short-lived," the central bank chief said.
"With the growth of aggregate demand looking more sustainable and with employment expanding broadly, the considerable monetary policy accommodation put in place in 2001 is becoming increasingly unnecessary," he said.
Federal Reserve policymakers voted June 30 to raise the target for the federal funds rate, which commercial banks charge each other overnight, to 1.25 percent from a 1958 low of 1.00 percent.
It was the first rate rise in four years, kicking off what is widely expected to be a series of increases taking the key rate to about four percent by the end of 2005.
Federal Open Market Committee (news - web sites) (FOMC) members said rates would likely rise at a "measured" pace but stressed their readiness to act more swiftly if inflation ran out of control.
The statement was made in the light of "considerable uncertainty" over the outlook for price pressures, Greenspan said.
For the moment, moderately rising labor costs did not appear to threaten long-term price stability, he said. Prices seemed to have been tamed by global competition along with excess US capacity.
"But we cannot be certain that this benign environment will persist and that there are not more deep-seated forces emerging as a consequence of prolonged monetary accommodation," Greenspan warned.
As a result, he said, the bank would watch closely for warning signs of inflation.
The economy should adjust relatively smoothly if interest rates rise gradually, Greenspan said.
"Even if economic developments dictate that the stance of policy must be adjusted in a less gradual manner to ensure price stability, our economy appears to have prepared itself for a more dynamic adjustment of interest rates," he added.
"In either scenario, individual instances of financial strain cannot be ruled out."
The bond market sold off on the comment, pushing up the yield on 10-year Treasury bonds to 4.442 percent from 4.376 percent just before Greenspan began speaking.
Greenspan, who presented Congress with a semiannual economic report by the Federal Reserve, foresaw relatively solid economic prospects despite some recent signs of softness.
In June, employers hired 112,000 extra workers, fewer than half the number expected, retail sales fell by a seasonally adjusted 1.1 percent, and US industry cut output 0.3 percent.
In the report, the central bank only slightly trimmed a 2004 economic growth forecast.
The new forecast calls for 2004 real gross domestic product to expand in a range of 4.5 to 4.75 percent, just down from a previous forecast in February for growth of 4.5 to 5.0 percent.
The report predicted more moderate real GDP (news - web sites) growth of 3.5 to 4.0 percent for next year.
Prices paid by consumers, excluding food and energy, should rise by 1.75 to 2.0 percent this year, and 1.5 to 2.0 percent in 2005, it said. It was the first time the bank had provided a "core" personal consumption expenditure (PCE) forecast.
The forecasts were based on a comparison of the fourth quarter with the same period the previous year.
Interesting article, thanks for posting the text, FIK. And thanks wvrevy for that tip! Appreciate it.
The bottom line is that the employment situation, like any other aspect of an economy the size of the US, is very complex. There are certainly negative factors at work as there are positive factors.
Unfortunately, in these matters there is never an objective standard against which we can measure things. Would things have been different had September 11th, 2001 been just like any other day? Probably. How different? Hard to say. Would things have been different had President Bush not invaded Iraq? Again, probably, but difficult to say the degree.
For what it's worth, I think things are headed in a positive direction right now. Honestly, I don't think President Bush has much to do with that. I'm not prepared to give him credit for an economic turnaround when I don't blame him for the recession. It is my opinion that the occupant of the Oval Office (be they Republican or Democrat) works on the fringes where the economy is concerned.
The biggest concern I see in the NYT article is about the skills of American workers. Skilled workers can find work even in less than ideal economies. But without a valued skill to offer, even in the best of times a worker will have difficulty finding a decent job.
The bottom line is that the employment situation, like any other aspect of an economy the size of the US, is very complex. There are certainly negative factors at work as there are positive factors.
Unfortunately, in these matters there is never an objective standard against which we can measure things. Would things have been different had September 11th, 2001 been just like any other day? Probably. How different? Hard to say. Would things have been different had President Bush not invaded Iraq? Again, probably, but difficult to say the degree.
For what it's worth, I think things are headed in a positive direction right now. Honestly, I don't think President Bush has much to do with that. I'm not prepared to give him credit for an economic turnaround when I don't blame him for the recession. It is my opinion that the occupant of the Oval Office (be they Republican or Democrat) works on the fringes where the economy is concerned.
The biggest concern I see in the NYT article is about the skills of American workers. Skilled workers can find work even in less than ideal economies. But without a valued skill to offer, even in the best of times a worker will have difficulty finding a decent job.
Elwood Blues
"We're going to take things away from you on behal
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2004
- Messages
- 1,964
IMO, irrelevant.
Why would you count people who don't want to be in the work force as part of the unemployment statistics?
My MIL hasn't worked in 40 years. So somehow she should be included in some unemployment statistic?
Haven't we been down this road before?
artgrowden
Earning My Ears
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2002
- Messages
- 22
They also have never counted self employed people according to a recent book I read.
It's the government-go figure!
faithinkarma
<font color="green">I'm not a good swimmer, but I
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2003
- Messages
- 9,056
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...584&e=1&u=/nm/20040720/pl_nm/campaign_bush_dc
CEDAR RAPIDS, Iowa (Reuters) - After launching two wars, President Bush (news - web sites) said on Tuesday he wanted to be a "peace president" and took swipes at his Democratic rivals for being lawyers and weak on defense.
With polls showing public support for the war in Iraq (news - web sites) in decline, the Republican president cast himself as a reluctant warrior as he campaigned in the battleground state of Iowa against Democrat John Kerry (news - web sites) and his running mate, former trial lawyer John Edwards (news - web sites). Bush lost the state in 2000 by only a few thousand votes.
"The enemy declared war on us," he told a re-election rally. "Nobody wants to be the war president. I want to be the peace president."
Bush has called himself a "war president" in leading the United States in a battle against terrorism brought about by the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on America.
"I'm a war president. I make decisions here in the Oval Office in foreign policy matters with war on my mind," he said in February.
CEDAR RAPIDS, Iowa (Reuters) - After launching two wars, President Bush (news - web sites) said on Tuesday he wanted to be a "peace president" and took swipes at his Democratic rivals for being lawyers and weak on defense.
With polls showing public support for the war in Iraq (news - web sites) in decline, the Republican president cast himself as a reluctant warrior as he campaigned in the battleground state of Iowa against Democrat John Kerry (news - web sites) and his running mate, former trial lawyer John Edwards (news - web sites). Bush lost the state in 2000 by only a few thousand votes.
"The enemy declared war on us," he told a re-election rally. "Nobody wants to be the war president. I want to be the peace president."
Bush has called himself a "war president" in leading the United States in a battle against terrorism brought about by the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on America.
"I'm a war president. I make decisions here in the Oval Office in foreign policy matters with war on my mind," he said in February.
Elwood Blues
"We're going to take things away from you on behal
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2004
- Messages
- 1,964
How does one achieve peace?
Victory over the enemy.
Victory over the enemy.
faithinkarma
<font color="green">I'm not a good swimmer, but I
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2003
- Messages
- 9,056
I see...so it has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that he was trying to portray himself as a strong warrior prez until the polls said the war had lost favor causing him to switch the rhetoric and call himself the peace prez. whatever keeps ya warm and fuzzy 
artgrowden
Earning My Ears
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2002
- Messages
- 22
Originally posted by faithinkarma
I see...so it has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that he was trying to portray himself as a strong warrior prez until the polls said the war had lost favor causing him to switch the rhetoric and call himself the peace prez. whatever keeps ya warm and fuzzy
C'mon Faith, it's all the CIA's fault!
gometros
<font color=teal>WDWWDS Chief Weapons Inspector an
- Joined
- May 4, 2001
- Messages
- 8,289
High horse? Look at what post I was supporting. Either you misunderstood my post or you were directing that at someone else. My point (albeit a bit late in the debate) was that the OP was full of hot air.
faithinkarma
<font color="green">I'm not a good swimmer, but I
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2003
- Messages
- 9,056
Originally posted by ThreeCircles
What happened to it? Must you ask? W happened to it, duh!
I've been trying to figure out how to post this graph for weeks. Thanks !
Kendra17
"Kendra17" is a consortium of political analysts a
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2004
- Messages
- 1,919
Thank you, FIK. David Kay has also said incongressional testimony in 1/04
"In the course of [work in Iraq], I had innumerable analysts who came to me in apology that the world that we were finding was not the world that they had thought existed and that they had estimated. Reality on the ground differed in advance. And never not in a single case was the explanation, 'I was pressured to do this.' The explanation was very often, 'The limited data we had led one to reasonably conclude this. I now see that there's another explanation for it.'"
He goes on to say to the Senate Armed Services Committee (1/04),"Based on the intelligence that existed, I think it was reasonable to reach the conclusion that Iraq posed an imminent threat. Now that you know reality on the ground as opposed to what you estimated before, you may reach a different conclusion although I must say I actually think what we learned during the inspection made Iraq a more dangerous place, potentially, than, in fact, we thought it was even before the war."
Furthermore, the later article you sent, and the one I've just quoted here doesn't change the fact that there were some weapons found, and that there were active, yet mostly inneffective programs. Kay did point out that the Ricin program was active through March of 2003. And, we are certain that he had long range missles that he were absolutely disallowed. Also, we've since found out that he was attempting to purchase uranium and uranium oxide from Niger.
Finally, this doesn't negate the October 2003 report, FIK. He wasn't lying; that was the truth. The January 2004 information is the truth, too. One doesn't cancel the other out. It clarifies information, but he certainly thought Saddam was a threat. we had EVERY reason to believe there were stockpiled weapons (Kay quotes, ""We have to remember that this view of Iraq was held during the Clinton administration and didn't change in the Bush administration. It is not a political 'got you' issue."), and in fact, he thinks Iraq had the weapons through the mid-90s.
faithinkarma
<font color="green">I'm not a good swimmer, but I
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2003
- Messages
- 9,056
Kendra,
You keep promising to cite sources, and yet you keep forgetting to do so. I, for one, am simply not going to chase down your quotes any more.
You keep promising to cite sources, and yet you keep forgetting to do so. I, for one, am simply not going to chase down your quotes any more.
Kendra17
"Kendra17" is a consortium of political analysts a
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2004
- Messages
- 1,919
FIK,
the quotes can be found in this article:http://www.nationalreview.com/gaffney/gaffney200401290843.asp
I realize that National Review is part of the conservative press, however it has NEVER been accused of shoddy journalism, as has the NYT in most recent years. Obviously, one needs a balance to the "paper of record" . Also, you sent the link to the Slate piece, not the NYT article . ..I had to "simply. . .chase down" the original piece the Slate article quoted.
Interestingly though, even the Slate article states, "In the late 1990s, it seems, Saddam took personal control of Iraq's WMD program. As a result, Iraqi scientists started going to him directly with proposals of fanciful weapons systems, for which Saddam paid them heaps of money. As Kay puts it, the WMD program turned into a "vortex of corruption." Saddam was deluded with fantasies; the scientists pocketed the money and filed phony progress reports on fake weapons systems." So it looks like Saddam himself THOUGHT there was an effective program!
Also, the article I'm sending you was written by Frank J. Gaffney Jr. --President of the Center for Security Policy--certainly credible source.
faithinkarma
<font color="green">I'm not a good swimmer, but I
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2003
- Messages
- 9,056
You fail to provide links to any of your statements, despite having been asked repeatedly by several posters, and despite having promised to do so yourself, and then you have the nerve to complain about which site your quotes lead me to?????? Man, you got big ones lady ! All I can say is I am glad you are not on my side of any argument, ever.
Kendra17
"Kendra17" is a consortium of political analysts a
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2004
- Messages
- 1,919
Are you kidding? I sent the links, FIK! What on earth are you talking about? I sent the links (later, just like I said) to the first excerpted report in '03, and I just included a link to what I just sent you from National Review which quotes David Kay's testimony on NPR, Congress, and the Senate Armed Services Committee.
Again, I'm sending the link in cast you inexplicably missed it
http://www.nationalreview.com/gaffn...00401290843.asp
faithinkarma
<font color="green">I'm not a good swimmer, but I
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2003
- Messages
- 9,056
excuse me, but you provided the link a full day after the original post. Despite having been asked earlier by several posters about other posts to please provide links ( we are still waiting for those links BTW). When you finally did provide links to your post about David Kay, I had already found the information, and you took it upon yourself to criticize where the name had led me. Do you not see the problem? You did not provide links with your original post. And when you finally did provide a link you got all huffy because I had found a different link. Surely one way to avoid having anyone come up with a different link is to provide your own in the first place?
again I remind you, as you seem to have inexplicably missed your own post: you did not provide a link with yout original post !
again I remind you, as you seem to have inexplicably missed your own post: you did not provide a link with yout original post !
Kendra17
"Kendra17" is a consortium of political analysts a
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2004
- Messages
- 1,919
ugh.
FIK, let's start over. . .
I did not provide a link with the original post because I could not right then, stated such, and stated I would provide one later. I did provide one on page nine. . .then, I included the same information with bullet points on page 10. On the same page, I think, you disregarded the information-- citing as evidence Kay's own testimony in January 2004 (Slate article)--3 months after the October '03 information I had included.
Then, to prove your point, you sent me the link to the Slate article, which quoted the NYT article. I read both the Slate article and the NYT article. I responded with more quotes from Kay, but neglected to source it. When you pointed that out, oh-so-politely, I immediately sent you the National Review article link in an attempt to clear it up. I didn't have a problem with you sending the Slate article. I had a problem with you using a secondary source; that is, an article/op-ed piece that quoted another article for the crux of its iinformation.
I hope this clears things up.
Additionally, let's forget the miscommunication for a moment. I sent you this information in response to your dismissal of Kay's October '03 testimony/report:
and this:
Fondly,
FIK, let's start over. . .
I did not provide a link with the original post because I could not right then, stated such, and stated I would provide one later. I did provide one on page nine. . .then, I included the same information with bullet points on page 10. On the same page, I think, you disregarded the information-- citing as evidence Kay's own testimony in January 2004 (Slate article)--3 months after the October '03 information I had included.
Then, to prove your point, you sent me the link to the Slate article, which quoted the NYT article. I read both the Slate article and the NYT article. I responded with more quotes from Kay, but neglected to source it. When you pointed that out, oh-so-politely, I immediately sent you the National Review article link in an attempt to clear it up. I didn't have a problem with you sending the Slate article. I had a problem with you using a secondary source; that is, an article/op-ed piece that quoted another article for the crux of its iinformation.
I hope this clears things up.
Additionally, let's forget the miscommunication for a moment. I sent you this information in response to your dismissal of Kay's October '03 testimony/report:
and this:
Fondly,
-
First 3 Nights of Mickey's Not-So-Scary Halloween Party SOLD OUT
-
The Hottest Spots in Walt Disney World That Desperately Need More Shade
-
New Photos Show Demo of Muppets Courtyard in Hollywood Studios at Walt Disney World
-
NEW Lil' Boo Backpack & Mel's Die-In HHN Merch Now Available
-
Are We Spoiling the Disney Magic Before We Even Arrive?
-
NEW Star Wars & Spider-Man LEGO Sets Hit Disney Store's Virtual Shelves
-
Disneyland Has The BEST Food But This Isn't It
Receive up to $1,000 in Onboard Credit and a Gift Basket!
That’s right — when you book your Disney Cruise with Dreams Unlimited Travel, you’ll receive incredible shipboard credits to spend during your vacation!
CLICK HERE
That’s right — when you book your Disney Cruise with Dreams Unlimited Travel, you’ll receive incredible shipboard credits to spend during your vacation!
CLICK HERE
