Sun, Feb 1, 2015, 7:10 AM EST - U.S. Markets closed


% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

The Dow Chemical Company Message Board

  • furryriverrat furryriverrat Mar 24, 2004 6:51 PM Flag


    According to a new report, President Bush's official campaign is selling clothing made in Burma - a country whose goods Bush banned for sale in the U.S. because of their awful human rights, narcotics and sex trafficking record. According to Newsday, "the merchandise sold on includes a $49.95 fleece pullover, embroidered with the Bush-Cheney '04 logo and bearing a label stating it was made in Burma, now Myanmar."1

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • Let's hear it for parkerdad, he is right on about kerry and clinton. Keep the posts coming, who says this forum has to be all about finances and the like?

      Tunnel vision spawns idiots, keep your minds open to all of the issues not just finances.

    • Support for the pres among the forces is quite variable, especially depending on whether they are in a tent in the desert or whether they are in one of Saddam's old palaces. National Guard folks especially are less than thrilled with the Bush policies and when they hear the latest out of Washington, they are likely to be less so.

    • Hey turnip,

      You stated <Do not confuse patriotism with the real skill set required to be a good American president.>

      Coming from a Brit (nice pic), your position is a bit confusing to this Canuck. How would you class Roosevelt's skill set when he struggled with the U.S. problem of entering WWII to save your skin? Maybe it's just a matter of where the bombs are falling?

      One thing I admire about most Brits is their continued support of their U.S. Ally. We Cdns, on the other hand, are currently struggling to re-define that support versus trade opportunities. We both seem to have short memories, don't we?


    • As a Brit I do worry about who the next US President is - even if I have no say in that persons election or re-election.
      What Bush does impacts his allies - and for the tens and hundreds of millions outside of North America who are not brainwashed by the bipartisan nature of US politics, this impact is felt as chillingly as 9/11 was for Americans i.e. Madrid.

      What I do know is that British reporting has confirmed time and time again that Clinton (a Rhodes scholar like Tony Blair) did take heed of security warnings on terrorism (but failed to act) whilst in stark contrast Bush posseses neither the intelligence nor attention span to listen to his National security advisors and then when he did act, it was in the most hamfisted and geopolitically insensitive manner possible.

      On 'Who is the better C-in-C'; explain to me why suicide rates in the US Army are at an all time high under Bush in 2004 (not including figures for those who have committed suicide since returning from Iraq).

      I suggest you keep posts restricted to Dow shenanigans and spend more time surfing the web for objective reporting on the real problems behind the Bush administration and Bush himself.

      On a final sad note I can recall a 6 Sigma Meeting in Madrid in 2002 attended by 2 current Midland/Houston based Polyolefins employees. Speaking to a European Commercial audience one of the (unnamed) Gentlemen began his presentation by thanking the people of Spain for their wholehearted support for Bush and his campaign against terrorism. The look of utter surprise and bewilderment amongst the audience was priceless. This guy had no idea of political opinions outside of the US; probably believed and still believes everything he is fed by Fox and other quality broadcasters.
      If this story is lost on you let me explain. Over 90% of Spanish voters were against the decision by the Spanish government of Aznar to back Bush and send troops to Iraq. Even without the recent Madrid bombings which took place 3 days before the elections which saw Aznar kicked out of the Prime Ministers Palace, Aznar was histroy.
      Bush is bad for America and bad for all his allies.
      Do not confuse patriotism with the real skill set required to be a good American president

    • Wait a second parkerdad. You may not read this post but others will. When Clinton tried acting on the "actionable intelligence" we had about al-Qaida back then by firing crusie missles and by keeping Iraq in line through a bombing campaign, the Republican line was he was doing it to take attention away from Lewinsky.

      On another note, this separation of powers b.s. so Rice doesn't testify is inconsistent. You mean to tell me the judicial branch can put Bush into power but the legislative branch can't investigate Bush's NSA publically?

    • I will make you two bets:
      1) Kerry wins
      2) Dow is at 40 by June, most of the wind behind us has gone.
      Oh and a third,
      3) Clinton gets a major role in the next democratic Presidency in 2004. Maybe U.N Ambassador who votes with real intent on achieving World Peace rather than the jack ass we currently have.

    • Here is my alternative:

      Do not go to war against Iraq!? Wow, i can't believe i actually came up with that!

      Of course the troops love the President. He sent them to war. The essence of a soldier is to fight, they are taught to fight, shoot, kill. That's their job.

      I don't think we are against the Prez fighting terrorism, just about starting a war and creating a situation that is causing chaos in the middle east.

      All that money and effort could have helped so many people in america.

      We had Iraq cornered between two narrow longitude (or lattitude) lines. They weren't going to do jack crap. Are you kidding me! Prior to the war we were constantly shooting down their planes or keeping them under the "line". If one missle would have been launched, they would have been attacked by us in less than 20 seconds. And the world would have understood. What part of this don't you understand?

      -IQ of 55

    • So you think attacking Iraq is helping the eliminate terrorism. You got to be kidding me. I agree with Bush going after Bin Laden. It's specific, direct and attacking the people directly doing the terrorist actions. Why not attack Saudi Arabia? They have more terrorist than Iraq.

      Iraq went from a WMD reason to a um, uh, oh shit, a "that's it, defeating terroism".

      It never was about terroism to start out with. Why was all the hype about the UN searching for WMD, deadlines for Iraq to show WMD, talk about the Iraq government not follwoing the UN charter, blah blah blah. Remember that?! Hey, all a lie and then it wen to a fight on terrorism. Bullshit!

    • Question Parkerdad have you served in a combat zone????? It sounds like not.

    • Kerry also protested wars with Jane Fonda. He's a consistent flip-flopper and will never be President because of it. Were you patriotic ever in your life? I imagine it was tough when Clinton was chasing skirts in the Oval Office while he let the terrorists build up their plots. By he way, our troops love Pres. Bush and hated Clinton. Who is the better Commander-in-Chief? Deep down, I think you know the truth. But why let the truth get in the way of your illogical thinking?

      Time out. I will only post business and finance stuff after this post. Sorry to those who have to sift throught this, but I can't resist commenting to idiots that bash a President during a war and have no alternatives.

      Dow Chemical to hit 50 by June. Earnings will be good this quarter.

    • View More Messages
45.16+0.15(+0.33%)Jan 30 4:06 PMEST

Trending Tickers

Trending Tickers features significant U.S. stocks showing the most dramatic increase in user interest in Yahoo Finance in the previous hour over historic norms. The list is limited to those equities which trade at least 100,000 shares on an average day and have a market cap of more than $300 million.