MacDailyNews - Where Mac news comes first

Pardon my language here, but you know the whole market is just completely FSCKED when even companies that are GROWING THEIR REVENUES AND MARKET SHARE are tumbling.

Why?

I can see companies with bad outlooks and poor current sales would be down, but why is the one tech company that's defying gravity in every way be falling like a sack of door knobs??????

Nov 20, 08 - 03:46 pm Comment from: Jay-Z

@ MidWest Mac:

The market is in panic. Logic is going out the window.

Nov 20, 08 - 03:50 pm Comment from: Fred Mertz

MidWest Mac,

Personally, I'm concerned with figuring out where the bottom is, so I can back up the truck and fill it with AAPL.

In 36 months, a lot of people are going to be looking back to this time and kicking themselves, moaning, "Why, oh why, didn't I buy AAPL when it was sitting at $X?!"

Nov 20, 08 - 03:58 pm Comment from: Demon

Hold on to your investments. Even do some bottom feeding and pickup some bargains, but, don't sell (or as they say through the baby out with the bath water). The current market hysteria will not last forever. Let the big investors (hedge funds, retirement funds, banks and the rest) liquidate their positions in stock that they rather hold (like AAPL) to meet their redemptions, losses and other cash needs. While the small investors like us with cash increase out positions in good growth stocks at bargain basement prices. When the market hysteria ends and the market starts to return to it's center you'll see a new stronger bull market take over and in a few years you can do some profit taking and feel good about paying the IRS the capital gain taxes and you can do it with a big fat grin on your face to boot.

Nov 20, 08 - 04:01 pm Comment from: ron

" don't sell (or as they say through the baby out with the bath water)"

Don't throw the baby out either.

I was lucky enough to buy Appl at $12.....hey am I dating myself...my memory is going...but I think I placed the buy order on a NEWTON....ha

Nov 20, 08 - 04:13 pm Comment from: binarypackrat

So buy now or wait a little longer (apple)?

Nov 20, 08 - 04:14 pm Comment from: Demon

@ Fred Mertz

with AAPL anything below $90.00 is the bottom. Don't worry so much about the absolute lowest price in 18 to 24 months that .01 to $3.00 a share is not going to matter all that much.
If you bought AAPL at $90.00/share and in 24 months sold it for $189.00 and the follow day it went to $190.00 would that $1.00 make a real difference. No because you more then a 100% profit.
So anything below $90.00/share on AAPL is the bottom a few buck lower then the $81.24 it was when I loaded this page is just that much more profit on the back end, even if AAPL were to go to $79.00 before the craziness ends and you paid $82.50 your still going to be a big, big winner on the back end.

The market has always been defined by FEAR.

"I must not fear.
Fear is the mind-killer.
Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration.
I will face my fear.
I will permit it to pass over me and through me.
And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path.
Where the fear has gone there will be nothing.
Only I will remain."

Litany from the fictional Bene Gesserit religion in the novel 'Dune' by Frank Herbert.

The vast oceans of mindless mega-wussies currently engaged in gambling/trading on Wallstreet don't subscribe to Herbert's vision. Like some hideous hybrid of lemmings and sheeple, they bleat helplessly while running all-out to a cliff of their own creation...

Oh well. When the dust settles, it'll be a buyer's market. And that can be a good thing, I suppose...

Well actually, eh-hmmm, Apple is on the decline because they wasted $100,000 to the No on 8 campaign.

check out my financial blog: stucktrader.blogspot.com. I have a history of trades that involved AAPL. You will notice that the stock has no real reference to its actual performance. Rather its the hype.

AND remember too that stocks are based on future growth... so, in the near future, if Apple releases something that is as important as the iPhone at the next MacWorld, you will be thankful that the stock is cheap. I foresee this stock heading to 50 in January, but it may hold up in December.

Keep buying Apple products not the stock for now. If you already are holding AAPL. You might as well keep it. You can even sell some to claim your $3500 in loses on your 2008 tax.

Investors are getting out of the market for two reasons.

1. Markets hate socialism
2. Taking profits before the anticipated increase in capital gains. (socialism)

Make that one reason

OBAMA!

I purchased an iPhone after researching all the available options at AT&T;, Verizon and TM. Tried several, returned them all. Got the iPhone. It just works.
Now I have tossed out my Dell PC, got a MacBookPro. It works, really well.
Next, purchasing new MacBooks for the entire office (10 of us) and everyone is elated. We figure to save about $10K per year on IT support, too. Kind of a no brainer to make the switch.
The Apple Ads say it all - switch and be happier and more productive and save costs at the same time.
Apple, thank you!

p.s. I am buying your stock like no tomorrow......

Buy all the stock you want. There is no bottom. You can use it to start fires with to push back the dark and keep away the roving bands of cannibals in the next couple of years.

@bluestateRed

Then they really are idots, aren't they?

This whole socialism BS is really starting to rub me the wrong way. By your standards, I'm sure Bill Clinton was a communist. Gee, that economy back then sure did suck, eh?

@MidWestMac

No Bill was no by any means a socialist t - but your guy most certainly is. Jut look at the people he has associated for his entire life.

Hilarious that the Republicans have made such a mess of the US economy - again - yet their supporters still can't admit it. Once again the Democrats will have to sort it out. The 1930s all over again.
And talking about idiots - It amazes me that Wall Street people are so stupid they can't see that Apple as about the only tech company worth investing in. Pearls before SWINE.

"The market is defined by fear!"

Absolutely correct. I have a $40K position in Apple and intend to sell. I'm not selling out of my fear. I expect there is still unrealized fear out there. I'm sure it will drop more. That's when I buy back in.

In the meantime, I can take the capital loss and apply it to a rather significant capital gain over the last year from property sales. This and other losses means that I don't have to pay $100K in income tax. And I can always buy it back (and I intend to) and make even more money.

God, I love America.

- Apple is a good buy, and has increased - now is the time to get out before your taxes go UP! You are willing to admit that Mr Obama has stated that he WILL increase capital gains taxes.

Please expain how the Republicans have "made a mess" out of the economy.

I'm waiting for your answer.

The markets started to crash when it began to look realy certain the the "Chosen One" was going to win, and have crashed at a more rapid pace since the election.

Like I said a month ago, Apple was stupid to not offer a 3-1 split when they were at 200.00 a share. They were stupid to give money against prop 8 which guarenteed to piss off half of their shareholders. Now with investors finally using reason instead of passion in the way they think we think it strange. If people make up there mind to buy stock because some talking head on tv says to. They deserve to lose their savings. My strategy is back to Apple when they are below 50. The Dow should be somewhere around 4500. That would place the Dow more in line with what the GDP growth has been since 1983.

The market is simply "pricing-in" our most socialist-leaning president in memory. The price of oil (and a gallon of gas) falling through the floor as well as an absence of the necessary two consecutive quarters of economic decline to qualify as a recession would, under most any other conditions, equate to large and significant market gains.

The Democrat-led Community Reinvestment Act boondoggle and the Democrat-shepherded government "investment" in the previously private sector enterprises of Fannie & Freddie (that the Bush administration, to their credit, tried to fix roughly 14 times but were turned away each and every time by the likes of Frank and Dodd) were the initial impetus for this disaster. The ramifications are now reverberating around the world, because in the world economy "as the U.S. goes, so goes everyone else."

Obama's stated goals of, among other things, actually increasing the capital gains taxes on investment -- which is one of the principal drivers of the general economy with so many Americans owning stock -- has the markets terrified. This president-elect is business-naive, to put it mildly; has never run a successful "anything" in the DPS (Dreaded Private Sector); and has so many allegiances and alliances of an extreme left-leaning nature that the free markets are scared to death.

Until Obama -- or someone he authorizes in his "Clinton Administration Mark II" -- actually comes out and confirms that he will not be raising ANY taxes for the forseeable future then this market will continue to fall. But thank your diety or dieties that oil has returned to Earth -- and then some! -- or we would all be on the brink of a depression already.

@Opie

Interesting that prop 8 passed even though the country is, acording to media comentators moving to the left. May this is not so.

I was mearly expressing a theory as to why the stock price of good companies goess down as was imedately attacked as if I'm some sort of right wing nut job.

Some of these people are just so afraid of any opposition to THEIR point of view. I thought liberals were supposed to be MORE open to new ideas (maybe socialism IS bad)

Maybe we need a fairness doctrine here to make sure that all points are given equil coverage... You KNOW im kidding right?

Lighent up, but it does seem that investors are afaid of this "Change and Hope" stuff. Unfulfilled hope is the worst of all human conditions and I'm just very afraid that this whole Obama campaing has set people up to be realy dissapointed, We are talking 60's type riots and everything. It's starting to look very much lile 1960, unfortunately neither Obama or his supported are old enough to rember what happed last time.

Hold on, it's going to be a rough ride.

blueStateRed (self-referential in more than one way....)

"Well actually, eh-hmmm, Apple is on the decline because they wasted $100,000 to the No on 8 campaign."

That Wrath of God thing's a bitch.

Nov 20, 08 - 06:27 pm Comment from: Cascadians

We are plunging into the next Greater Depression and all is swirling the drain with us.

Fred Mertz: "Personally, I'm concerned with figuring out where the bottom is, so I can back up the truck and fill it with AAPL.

binarypackrat: So buy now or wait a little longer (apple)?

Calling a bottom and top is nearly impossible, although the talking heads on TV do it all the time. Remember DOW 15,000? Where are those so-called experts now?

Personally. I'm looking for the market to retest the last significant market low (Sept 2002 @7197.49). Until then, I'm sitting on cash in equities and only trading the 4x.

MDN Magic Word: enough

As in, haven't the people had enough of incompetent politicians in Washington ruining our country? It's time to replace Congress.

At what point will AAPL share price be so low that a buy out, for access to 24.5 Billion in cash, come into play?

Apple is fine...the one that is really looking attractive right now is DISNEY....it is a lot easier to back the truck up and buy a load of Disney at 18 than Apple at 80 and which do you think is more likely to double in the next few months...

In Australia we crack up listening the neo-con musings of American republicans. In Australia we have a free medical system where most of the fee to see a doctor is refunded by Medicare. If you have to go to hospital it costs virtually nothing. If you want to go to a private hospital then that is what your private insurance is for. How is all of this paid? It's simple, every tax payer contributes 3 percent tax.

Likewise medicine is subsidised and this lowers the market rate for the drugs. This was brought in decades ago and then supported by both sides of parliament. Were either of these governments "socialist". No! Were they radical? No! Is the system widely supported by the Australian people? Yes!

Is Obama advocating this? No! Are American consumers bleeding when it comes heath care costs? Yes! Are Americans crying out for change? Yes!

Are the Republicans fiscal conservatives? No! Who was the last Republican who ran a fiscally conservative budget? Gerald Ford!

Get over it guys, your outgoing President worldwide is viewed as a village idiot. He got your country into a war it didn't need to fight and spent three trillion along the way. He walked away from Afghanistan before the job was done and then got into wars on two fronts. (The last person who achieved that was Adolph Hitler.)

He did nothing to reform the American economy until it was too late all based on the misassumption that the market knows best. And what is your response? Put forward Sarah Palin for 2012. Give me a break! You and your republicans fscked up big time and you have no right to criticise especially since Obama hasn't even been sworn in yet.

Oh and on a personal note over ten years ago I had a lifestyle induced heart attack. (Too much fatty junk food). Under the Australian health system they gave a state-of-the-art clot-busting drug. They prodded, punctured and operated on me. Blew up my arteries, inserted stents and charged me 300 bucks for the whole lot. Is that socialism or common sense?

Some day you'll get the picture that governments are meant to govern not just get into wars. I always thought that your constitution talked about a government "of the people and by the people". That means governing for everyone not just the rich and powerful.

That's my two cents worth and now you can flame me; but the public record stands as an indictment of eight wasted years of nothingness.

If gold will rust, what will iron do......you are right, we're f****ed!!!!!

Ozman
Are u stoopid or what? You flame youself. How long do you think it will be until they create a one world currency? After the distruction of the current money leader and the flaying economy wannabees like the Oz dollar. Don't you realize you won't be able to buy or sell unless you have this mark of approval from the world and it's coming leader. This is where it will become interesting. Can anyone say that this isn't where the world is heading? It makes one wonder who the "world" leader will be. Word of advice here, don't bow down to this man!

"It's simple, every tax payer contributes 3 percent tax."

For most middle to higher income American families that would be an increase in what they pay for healthcare, not a decrease.

Just because it doesnt come out of your pocket as cash handed to a doctor, doesn't mean you're not paying through the nose for your healthcare.

Logic has not been part of the stock market for a long time, emotion and panic rule the day, no matter how good Apple looks most investors are shitheads and will never see the light. Screw them all, let Apple make billions, people love their products and let Wall Street go --ck themselves.

ople,

Economics 101, the lower the dollar the cheaper the price for our exports. Stop spouting ideology and make economic sense. The reason the Australian dollar has dropped in value is because commodity prices have dropped due falling worldwide demand and this was caused by the worldwide recession. A downturn that originated under a stupid short-term economic ideology originating from the United States.

Now anyone can check up on currencies values but the bottom line is that our system isn't broken, our interest rates are higher and as such we can keep stimulating our economy much longer because we can cut interest rates much further. Whereas in America interest rates are at one percent so you have less room to move.

Similarly our government can go into deficit to stimulate the economy whereas your government has racked up huge amounts of debt and, as such will accumulate even more debt when it starts stimulating the US economy further.

Now if you want to make economic sense then that's cool but you just can't see straight because of your ideological blinkers.

In my argument I didn't criticise either side of Australian politics because each side (of politics) has many pluses. I can't say the same thing US republicans because they are not fiscally conservative. They have been spending American taxpayers' money in the wrong areas since Ronald Reagan was in power.

I repeat what I said before, Gerald Ford was the last Republican president to run the US economy at a "profit". The facts stand and you cannot alter the historical record.

D'ont take stock buying advice from a web page.

@Wizard of Oz,

You make a good (non-ideological) point. Our system is based on the insurance policy principle. You may not get value some years but in other years it comes in handy. The Australian health system works under the assumption of policy-making for the nation as a whole not just for individuals.

OZman,

You make some valid points, but not in toto.

You're talking about two very different systems when you compare Australia and the United States, both on an economic and a constitutional level. Your country has roughly 20 million inhabitants compared to 320 million here -- that alone is a significant difference. Further, on a fundamental basis, the problem with free markets failing to perform adequately almost never occurs until the government injects itself into the equation by thinking it can do better.

You're posting on a discussion board that further illustrates the point, albeit somewhat obliquely. In other words, do you really think that a Steve Jobs and an Apple Inc. would flourish under government control? Do you believe the United States (or the Australian) government would have ever created the Macintosh or the iPhone. No. Never. True innovation and genuine problem-solving almost always originate in the marketplace. And the more unencumbered the market, the more innovative it usually is.

I submit to you that people here are worried about Obama not necessarily because he wants to change America to a socialist economic model, but because he (and his already-existing allies in our Congress) are advocates of BIG government who believe that our federal government should become even BIGGER and do even MORE! His record and his past actions speak to a person who wants to retain capitalism yet change it from a model based on liberty to a model based on equality. "Equality" as in everyone achieving the same result, not everyone having the same opportunity. That is not what our framers of our brilliant constitutional document wanted; it's not what (for the moment) a majority of the American people really want; and perhaps most importantly, it is not what the American free market capitalist system that produces the lion's share of the world's innovation and resultant progress wants.

I believe that those who posted above and wrote that the stock market is fearful of Obama's coming policies and is therefore "pricing in" his presidency are correct. And, in closing, don't forget that a powerful federal government can also make any tax changes retroactive to a certain extent -- a probable reason that you see so many stock holders getting out as soon as they can, as in, now.

Peace.

Patriot,

I'm on my way out so I'll make this brief and come back to it later on. Republicans George W. Bush, George Bush Snr. and Ronald Reagan all blew out government spending. They sent their respective governements into the red. To be fair, G. Bush senior inherited a huge Reagan induced debt and he did try to reduce it

Democrat Bill Clinton (for all his personal failures) put the economy into the black. You can't predict what someone will do in government until they've governed.

Look the US government has huge debts and there's 26 trillion dollars in projected debt down the line (e.g. a lack of forward funding of retirement benefits of baby boomer civil servants).

The mainstream economic wisdom is to reorient spending and to slash wasteful expenditure. I think (think not predict) that is what Obama will do.

I also stated that in Australia we have a taxpayer funded medical system. We are NOT socialist. And Obama is NOT planning to go as far as Australia. He's a social democrat. A socialist is someone who by democratic means has a goal of a classless society. That's not Obama. If you don't believe me look it up on the net.

Last (and I really have to finish this off) there is no such thing as a free market. Governments of all countries intervene in the marketplace to varying degrees. Example: you have corporate governance laws that specify how a company can operate. Likewise you have consumer protection laws that intervene in the marketplace to protect consumers. This is called private enterprise it is not free enterprise. Free enterprise can only be found in criminal activity and that's it. Look it up if you think I'm wrong.

I've gotta go but keep posting guys this is a neat debate! I'll be back later.

Apple supporters please do not only look at Apple.

The whole market is tanking.

In comparison to Lehman's and the others, AAPL is doing just fantastic.

Things will recover but maybe take 3 to 5 years. DO NOT BUY STOCK WITH MONEY YOU NEED TO BUY FOOD WITH!!!

If anything, buy a new MacBook Pro. Fantastic value for what you get!

The only thing needed to fight the one world government thing is total anonymity on Web pages so that whistle blowers can do their job safely. P2P needs to be bullet proof (despite it also causing piracy but that business model has to evolve).

If all the energy, investment and marketing that went into iPhone and iPod had been directed at making far better computers that MSoft could never ever catch, then AAPL would have still taken the hit along with the rest of the market, but not nearly so much.

Had it not been for this miscalculation driven by Steve's obsession with changing the world with a cell phone, AAPL would be trading today at around $150.

OZman;

Ronald Reagan was in principle a proponent of decreased spending. He lowered Carter's insane tax rates dramatically, and this resulted in a massive influx of revenue to the government. When revenues to the treasury go UP (as happens every single time the tax rates are lowered, as long as they aren't lowered below the negative floor) it's incumbent on the Congress to concurrently CUT spending. If this is done, the system works. Of course, Reagan also had the matter of crushing the Soviet Union on the battlefield of economics with which to deal, and for this a certain indebtedness was a worthwhile trade-off.

I am not a fan of the current president of these United States. He mainly lost me when he refused to defend our nation's sovereignty on border issues. His spending excesses I can overlook, but only to a portion -- he did have the bloodiest terror attack on U.S. soil in history to deal with almost right out of the gate. This spoke to a de facto increase in government outlay in defense of liberty. Whether or not he went too far with Iraq is another debate, though it's important to remember that everyone here, Democrats included, reached the same conclusion about the necessity to invade at the time.

Your assessment of Clinton's effectiveness vis a vis the economy is, I believe, overstated. He failed in his election promise to cut taxes, and more importantly his administration benefited from the run-up of the internet-fueled tech economy during the '90s. To listen to left-wing spin, one would be led to believe that he had absolutely nothing to do with the recession that hit in 2000 -- even though he was still in "control" when it began.

I disagree with you that Obama's stated goal is to slash wasteful expenditure and reorient spending. He is deeply indebted (pardon the pun) to the powerful forces and groups which helped him get elected and they are extremely liberal. Only time will tell from what position (left or center) he ends up governing. So, I partially agree with you: I would say that you can't KNOW how someone will govern until they've governed, but the markets sure seem to be trying to PREDICT -- at least partially -- exactly what Obama is going to do.

I don't believe I ever stated that I thought Obama was a socialist in the societal sense of the word. I believe his economic model leans heavily in a socialist direction, but more precisely I said his record is one of being an advocate of increased taxation and BIG government. Both are enemies of liberty. And liberty is the bedrock principle of what it means to be an American.

Lastly, I disagree with your final point about markets, at least to the extent that the examples I gave in my first post were instances of our government inserting itself into the processes of the free market in a very significant and incestuous manner. For the federal government to "take over" and "run" companies previously answerable to market forces is quite different from a government that is understandably charged with passing and instituting oversight regulation. A government that restricts unfair business practices between corporate entities, protects the consumer from fraud, or otherwise publishes "rules of engagement" for the capitalist system of our economy is one thing. For that same government to forcibly take taxpayer's money, give it to those undeserving, and also actually get in the "business" (the very word is anathema to government) of running banking institutions (or ANYTHING) is quite another. So, "corporate governance" = a necessary evil. But "governments running corporations" = outright catastrophe.

It's been fun, but it's very late here now. Time to sleep.

Nov 21, 08 - 12:55 am Comment from: KingMel

@OZman
Your arguments are cogent and to the point. I *am* biased, however, because we apparently share many similar beliefs regarding the shortcomings of the Reagan and 'W' Bush Republican administrations, which were amplified by the power inherent when both the House and Senate are dominated by the same party. Their actions have been contradictory to the Republican stance as fiscal conservatives. Their excessive spending on defense is inexcusable. W's war on land conservation (national forests, dumping strip mining debris into the valleys and destroying streams) and other clean environment regulations is unbelievably idiotic. And W's push for faith-based initiatives is an incredibly bad idea that goes against the fabric of the Constitution. I could go on, but I have digressed.

The Bush administration has 'stimulated' the U.S. economy with tax cuts, massive increases in gov't spending, reductions in interest rates, two simultaneous wars, more tax cuts, and a stimulus package. The fact that the economy has not performed better should raise concerns because, as OZman correctly pointed out, the U.S. government is practically out of stimulus ammunition. More spending? Who will continue to finance our deficits, and at what cost? Interest rate cuts? Going to zero wouldn't be much of a change.

I don't blame everything on Bush, but he and the Republican party (and the people who voted for him) bear significant responsibility.

By the way, George Carlin was absolutely right about organized religion.

Patriot,

Please find a non-ideological definition of socialist and I'll agree with you. You did not address my definition of the difference between socialism and social democracy.

Socialism is not big government and high taxes on it's own. It is a stated belief to bring in a classless society over time.

Communism is to establish a classless society via revolutionary means. Likewise you keep comparing socialism and liberalism. They are fundamentally different. I suggest you read up on John Stuart Mill's work on liberalism because he is the one who started the whole term.

You need to look at the whole term of social democracy. Modern social democracy is centrist such as was the case under Tony Blair Labour government. This is not socialist at all. Likewise liberty is a term bandied around to the ad nauseum.

Is liberty defined as the right to bear arms to the point that you can possess a semi-automatic gun under the pretext of it being used for hunting. And then this is balanced by America having the largest number of gun deaths in the OECD. Is liberty where it is OK when the United States is the only country in the OECD not to have a universal health system and still manages to go broke in the meantime?

Let's face it George W. Bush lied to the American people over and over again. And what do you have to show for all that time? A country that has racked up huge amounts of private and public debt. A country that has no government industry policy because under the guise of "free markets" you just let the marketplace decide. This is nonsensical rubbish.

Orthodox economics teaches that for capitalism to work there must be a high level of greed. If there wasn't greed then people wouldn't acquire assets. Don't get me wrong I'm not using the term greed in the emotive sense I'm just saying that people don't invest their money into the marketplace for the good of society they do so because they want to make a profit.

Now here's the crux of my argument; it is the role of government to reduce the effects of greed via targeted legislation. Not legislation for the sake of large government. Specifically that's what hasn't happened over the last eight years.

The president went off to have a war or two and refused to do what he was elected to do. In other words he believed that the markets would make all the right decisions because the people who run the banks; the people who run the auto industry; the people who run the insurance companies all know best. It didn't work…

As for the war on terror the President in the name of this "war" tortured prisoners, flouted the law (viz. various Supreme Court decisions rejected this view). As soon as you call it a war then your enemies can also say it a war and then in the eyes of many in the middle east they are seen as martyrs. Don't you dare invoke September 11 as a godlike omen that allows you to flout the law and throw good governance out the window. You can never stop terrorism, it's like counting grains of sand on a beach. So we have to have a never-ending war?

You think that America is the only country that has experienced terrorism. Eighty eight Australians were blown up by radical Muslims in Bali. And this was from a country of twenty million people. We worked with the Indonesian government and supported good governance in Indonesia. It wasn't easy but what we didn't do is start bombing our neighbours or the like.

Ideological terms can be bandied around left, right and centre but good governance is another thing altogether. After September 11 there was so much sympathy and support for the US and what did Bush do? He bullied and blackmailed his way around the world. He did this and the effect was that all countries in the OECD had a gut full of the the village idiot treating us like we just didn't understand what was going on.

In Australia 70 percent of adults wanted an Obama win because what we saw was this highly articulate, measured individual who could lead the United States back into it's rightful place as a bastion of freedom and democracy. Then we looked at Bush and we all wanted an end to the farce that we have experienced

Obama is no socialist but he does have integrity. Bush has not one jot of integrity. This is a man who has an appalling military record; is a former alcoholic and perhaps worse.

His father, I still have respect for because he put his life on the line for his country and he did his best for the nation. You say you haven't made up your mind about George W. Bush's record in Iraq? He invaded a sovereign nation on a false pretext and then his administration went around making excuses for the invasion.

KinMei,

You're dead right mate. I just want to see a US administration that has integrity and walks around quietly but also has a big stick if need be. I'm just sick and tired of a man who ended up as the genetic puddle in a long line of Bushes. George senior warned his son about invading Iraq but he didn't listen. Three trillion dollars later…

"Obama is no socialist but he does have integrity. Bush has not one jot of integrity."

On that I'd differ. Bush has held the line on ideologically unpopular ideas because he believes in them. That doesn't make him less of an idiot, just an idiot with integrity.

Obama could no more throw Jeramiah Wright under a bus, until he felt he needed to throw him under a bus. And there are half a dozen other areas during the campaign where Obama made 180 degree reversals for political gain. He has no personal integrity, he's a populist, a product, an empty suit well sold to the dumber half of America.

And it's true to say, no-one will know how he will goven, because no-one can be clear what he stood for in the campaign (except a more socialist agenda in general) letalone what he will stand for tomorrow if the opinion polls tell him a position is unpopular.

Not So,

Please define the term socialist.

I think invading a country on a false pretext and then finding ways to justify the invasion lacks integrity. Likewise, the leader of the world's largest democracy supporting torture equates quite nicely into my phase of not having one jot of integrity.

Lose some weight you fat bastard! My tax dollars paid for your fancy operation.

Too late dude, I'm trim and fit. Nowadays I eat low fat and don't touch sugar to boot. But I'm sure with that attitude of yours one day someone will take offence and put you in hospital, and then MY taxes will pay for you. Oh and for the record I also have private insurance. Don't ya just love Oz.

Oh my manners, I forgot to say goodnight to all from Oz, especially all those economics free neo-cons.

socialist. n. See Barry Obama.

waiting list. n. Consequence of socialized medicine.

If you can get your police to stop killing aborigines in their custody, and stop having other countries torture and kill people for you, we might be able to take your comments on torture seriously.

But at least you had the balls to work with Indonesia to help them convict and kill the Bali bombers for you, something that would have been illegal had they been tried in Australia.

GW was handed a world created by William Harmonica Clinton where the enemies of the US believed that the US was weak and did not have the stomach for war so could be attacked with impunity.

That perception needed to be corrected. A pacifist in the White House will only cost more lives long term. Appeasement never works, just ask Neville Chamberlain where it gets you.

"Oh and for the record I also have private insurance. "

Why because the socialized system is so good but you feel you've used your share and want to use an inferior private one just to give your cobbers a fair suck of the sav?

How very socialist of you.