| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Gates, others to see gains from Microsoft dividend | |
|
||
| Time: 10:10 EST/15:10 GMT | News Source: InfoWorld | Posted By: Robert Stein | ||
|
The same proxy said Chief Executive Officer Steve Ballmer held 235.5 million common shares, worth $37.7 million in post-split annual dividend payments under the dividend plan. The company's 29 executive officers and directors, the proxy said, held a total 898.1 million shares, which would carry a post-split dividend payment of $143.7 million. On Jan. 7, President Bush unveiled an economic stimulus plan that included a provision abolishing the investor tax on dividends. Democrats have countered that 25 percent of the tax break would go to people who make more than $1 million a year. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 26 through 50 of 336 Prev | Last | Next |
The time now is
10:50:55 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #26 By 2332 (65.221.182.3) at 1/19/2003 10:26:37 PM |
|
#28 - "Reagan takes office and Communism soon falls. Hell, thats obviously pure coincidence... according to RMD. Just pure happenstance. It could have happen at any time during the previous 50 years, but just by chance happened after Reagan applied amazing pressure."
Just like a Christian to equate correlation with causation. I've provided my reasons for not believing that Reagan single handedly killed the USSR. If you don't care to address them, then fine, but stop spreading your logical fallacies around like candy. "I must attend my Christian church tonight and learn more about how Jesus was a Democrat and supported abortion rights. LOL." Did I say he would have been a democrat? No. I said the last thing he would have been is a Republican. Let's see... he advocated giving everything you own to the poor, rebelled against authority figures, was only violent with money changers, and told people to forgive prostitutes and adulterers, not put them in jail or stone them. How, exactly, do you figure he was a conservative? At any rate, I find it unlikely that he even actually existed. Since there are no less than 18 different accounts of an extremely similar theological hero dating all the way back to ancient Summeria. But that's another argument. This post was edited by RMD on Sunday, January 19, 2003 at 22:37. |
| #27 By 2332 (65.221.182.3) at 1/19/2003 10:36:37 PM |
|
#28 - ... one last thing:
"I must attend my Christian church tonight and learn more about how Jesus was a Democrat and supported abortion rights. LOL." While I have read the entire Bible twice, and have read 3 additional books ABOUT the Bible (including Asimov's wonderful Guide), it seems you've probably only read what you were told to read in church. Not a SINGLE SOLITARY TIME does Jesus EVER mention ANYTHING about aborting a fetus in the Bible. One might surmise that it didn't happen back then, so Jesus didn't feel it necessary to talk about. Well, that would be an incorrect assumption. Abortion occurred quite frequently throughout recorded history, and until modern times, was the primary means of contraception. In fact, the ONLY time anything even kinda similar to abortion is discussed in the Bible is in the Old Testament. It discusses a situation where if a man hurts a woman, and the result is the termination of her pregnancy, the man who hit the woman should pay a fine. If it was murder, and an eye for an eye holds, wouldn't you think the punishment would be a bit worse than a fine? After all, being fat is grounds for cutting ones own throat! The OT isn't light on punishment! Here is the exact quote from: "If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. "And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, Eye for eye, tooth for tooth . . ."--Ex. 21:22-25 Further support: http://www.ffrf.org/nontracts/abortion.html For a pretty good history of the church and its views on abortion, see: http://www.2think.org/abortion.shtml It turns out that it wasn't until the late 19th century that the church decided that abortion was bad. Ironically, this decision was the result of a misinterpretation of a scientific experiment in which it was thought that sperm were actually little people swimming around. No, I'm not kidding. This post was edited by RMD on Sunday, January 19, 2003 at 22:44. |
| #28 By 2332 (65.221.182.3) at 1/20/2003 1:26:29 AM |
|
#34 - "No you didn't. Have you no shame?"
Actually, yes I did. If you look at exactly what I said: 6.) The GDP did not begin substantial rise (above that of inflation) until January of 1995. (You can just hop on money.msn.com and enter in a date range for the Dow of 1979 to 2000 for proof of that. And, ironically, if you enter it to 2003, you will see the very sharp decline starting at the begining of the Bush Jr. administration. :-) Can you find me a place on money.msn.com where you can enter a date range for the GDP? I obviously meant the Dow. Get a grip, man. Notice that you still have yet to answer my questions. Instead, you try to find fault in trivial parts of my argument. It's called attacking the soft spots, and it's a tactic used by zealots who would rather have an intact dogma than know truth. "Ronald Reagan was the opposite of a rectionary. He was revolutionary who help free the people of Eastern Europe from evil left wing dictatoriships." Uh huh... keep telling yourself that. "It was the reactionary left who did not want Aghanistan freed from the Taliban." Wow. So, we went into Afganistan to free the people from the tyrant Taliban? Right... so we'll just ignore the fact we gave them millions to help them crush the poppy trade. We'll ignore the fact that we had absolutely no interest in their oppressive actions toward their people until we thought Osama might be in their country somewhere. We'll ignore the fact that we (Reagan) helped train and fund the Taliban to fight the USSR, and they used those same weapons against us when we decided they were "evil". (Actually, I think they're baddies too... but I'm not the hypocrtical one in this situation.) "It is the reactionary left who wants to leave the people of Iraq enslaved by Saddam Hussein." Again, I'll ignore the fact Hussein was installed during a CIA-backed coup of Iraq in 1968 so that we could be in better control of Iraqi oil. I'll ignore the fact that the United States did NOTHING (during the Reagan administration, by the way) when Hussein gassed at least 5,000 of his own people to death. I'll ignore the fact that the only reason we were EVER interested in him during the Bush administration was because of the threat he possed to our oil interests. Where were your republican "revolutionaries" when all this was happening? Seems to me, the only times conservatives want to revolt is when you ask them to pay taxes or stop using so much oil. Continued on next post... This post was edited by RMD on Monday, January 20, 2003 at 01:27. |
| #29 By 2332 (65.221.182.3) at 1/20/2003 1:26:51 AM |
|
Continued from previous post:
"It is the reactionary left that wallows in anti-semitism and hates change if the change would free people from dictatorships." Huh? Anti-semitism? Last I checked, most Jews ARE DEMOCRATS. And when has the left ever opposed freeing people from dictatorships? Let's take a quick look at history for a reality check: 1.) In 1953, the United States, under Eisenhower and with the full support of Congress, installed the Shah as DICTATOR of Iran. 2.) In 1954, the United States, under Eisenhower and with the full support of Congress, overthrows the DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED GOVERNMENT of Guatemala. 3.) In 1965, the United States, under Johnson and with the full support of Congress, installs Mobutu as DICTATOR of Zaire. 4.) In 1968, the United States, under Johnson and with the full support of Congress, installs Hussein as DICTATOR of Iraq. 5.) In 1983, the United States, under REAGAN and with the full support of Congress, installs installs Sir Gairy as DICTATOR of Grenada. So, let's see here. Even assuming all Democrats involved were in full support of the installation of these dictators (which they weren't), we have 3 Republican lead installations of dictators, and 2 democrat lead installations. So, it seems your revolutionary brethren aren't so revolutionary after all. In fact, the last time I can remember Republicans being truely revolutionary was during the Civil War... Lincoln was the very first true Republican, and alas... he was the last. "The world is better place because of Ronald Reagan and George Bush. You just hate to admit it." The sad part is, I think you actually believe this. |
| #30 By 2332 (65.221.182.3) at 1/20/2003 1:29:52 AM |
|
#36 - "Shame. Did you read the article?"
You keep shaming me, but I can't figure out why. I will, again, post the quote I did before which clearly states that from 1975 to 1980 the USSR was starting to have problems with oil production in Russia. "according to the CIA... From 1975 to 1980, the Soviet Union had a much lower 4% per year increase in use of oil and only a 3.5% increase in yearly production. This is the time when Soviet growth fell to 2.6%. From 1980 to 1985, the Soviet Union had no increase in oil consumption and a slight decline in oil production. At that time economic growth fell to 1.8% per year according to CIA estimates. See CIA Directorate of Intelligence (1988). Finally, from 1988 to 1992, Soviet and post Soviet oil production collapsed, as did consumption." |
| #31 By 2332 (65.221.182.3) at 1/20/2003 1:39:20 AM |
|
I'll make this a new post because this makes 1000 posts for me. :-)
Here is a good list of regime changes done by the United States: http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/DailyNews/regime_changes021203.html Hmmm... seems to me the pattern here is not freedom for the people involved, but instead political and financial interests for the United States. The United States has never been an agent for the spread of democracy. Instead, it has been an agent for the spread of our selfish interests. Is this a bad thing? Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't... but I take great issue with the insane ideal that Republicans have spent their time serving this country by trying to spread democracy. That's like saying McCarthyism was about spreading democracy. MyCarthyism was about fear mongering, and about focusing the hate of a nation on a single enemy. It was about irrationality, and about political greed. It was about the destruction of civil rights, and about the spread of extreme ignorance. Oh, and it was lead by a Republican. Does this mean all Republicans are tring to do what McCarthy did? Obviously not. I'm just trying to poke holes in your little anti-reality bubble. This post was edited by RMD on Monday, January 20, 2003 at 01:40. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 26 through 50 of 336 Prev | Last | Next |
The time now is
10:50:55 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
