| 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 |
 |
Bush Adviser Aided Microsoft Foe | |
|
||
| Time: 00:52 EST/05:52 GMT | News Source: Associated Press | Posted By: Todd Richardson | ||
|
When a key Microsoft rival wanted to stave off the impending antitrust settlement with the government, he reached out for a White House technology adviser and a fund-raiser for Attorney General John Ashcroft. Nothing ever came of the attempt by technology executive James Barksdale and the settlement went through. In a sworn deposition, Barksdale, who once headed the company that produced the Netscape Web browser, described how he tried to reach Ashcroft by contacting E. Floyd Kvamme, director of President Bush's Office of Science and Technology late last year. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 172 Last | Next |
The time now is
6:19:42 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 143 (172.175.184.158) at 3/17/2002 1:27:59 AM |
| “ Surprise “ |
| #2 By 135 (208.50.201.48) at 3/17/2002 1:34:53 AM |
|
Absolutely shocking!
|
| #3 By 2332 (129.21.145.80) at 3/17/2002 3:03:04 AM |
|
I am continually surprise by the seeming lack of wrong-doing in the Bush White House.
I still think Bush is a moron, and his ideology is both contradictory and ignorant, but I'm at least slightly encouraged that he isn't as much of a scum bag as I thought he was. |
| #4 By 37 (24.196.75.92) at 3/17/2002 7:30:42 AM |
| Bush is absolutely pathetic, and is an embarassing President. I respect our President, but he is completely stupid. At least Gore would not have been embarassing when he speaks publicly. Have you read the Bushisms at www.slate.com ? It's scary! |
| #5 By 61 (65.32.169.133) at 3/17/2002 8:24:33 AM |
|
Ok yeah, Bush graduated from Yale and Harvard.... where did Gore go? Oh yeah, he dropped out!
If you ask me, yall are really pathetic. Just because he's not good at public speaking doesn't make him an idiot. I guess I wouldn't expect anything less from a bunch of democrats though. |
| #6 By 135 (208.50.201.48) at 3/17/2002 11:35:43 AM |
|
RMD - There is still the cloud over the administration with regards to Enron. Why Cheney refuses to release his notes is beyond me.
JDM - No, he's not universally loved. He is respected right now because of his position, but that respect will waiver if he continues to push some of these stupid initiatives. #7 - Doubtful. Bush has had to a 180 on most of his campaign talk since 9/11. He wanted to turn us into an isolationist country, now he's doing the opposite. If he continues to push this thing with Iraq he'll lose in 2004. CPUGuy - Harvard. Al Gore graduated from Harvard, but did drop out of Divinity school. Your right about one thing, you shouldn't expect anything but truth and honesty from Democrats and lies and falsehoods from Republicans. :) #10 - Agreed. There's been a large amount of evidence pointing to the competitors heavily lobbying government against Microsoft. This is far more questionable than any lobbying that Microsoft may have done, because that's to be expected. But when Oracle is out there writing the remedy, and Barksdale is trying to pull strings, etc... you got to to wonder. Certainly in light of the behavior and comments of Judge Jackson, it gives the perception of this trial being heavily biased. #11 - I'm just glad President Bush did a 180 on his policies after 9/11. He's now going down the same paths as President Clinton, which is good. |
| #7 By 2332 (129.21.145.80) at 3/17/2002 12:58:20 PM |
|
Yes, you all must be right. We would all be reading the Koran right now if Gore had won.
Give me a break. I didn't particularly want Gore to win either, but at least I don't fell that I'm smarter that Gore... I should never feel smarter than the leader of the free world. |
| #8 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 3/17/2002 3:58:55 PM |
|
stubear - Oh give me a bloody frickin break. It amazes me to no end how people from the GOP will lie, cheat, steal and use tragedy for their political aims.
President Clinton did what he could. He didn't have the backing of the American people to send the resources of the US after Bin Laden that 9/11 has granted to Bush. When he did pump up the rhetoric after the Embassy bombings in Africa, he was accused of trying to distract public attention away from the GOP scandal mongering. If you are going to blame Clinton, then you must also blame former President Bush, former President Reagan, former President Carter and so on... Are you ready to blame President GH Bush for the '93 WTC bombing? Why not? Considering the planning for that event occured during his watch. Hell, blame President GW Bush himself for giving financial aid to the Taliban right up until 9/11 because Mullah Omar had promised to declare growing poppies to be a sin. [That probably also meant executing farmers, but that's ok... it's the drug war after all!] |
| #9 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 3/17/2002 3:59:31 PM |
|
#18 - As long as you don't insult me by calling me a Republican, I don't care.
|
| #10 By 2332 (129.21.145.80) at 3/17/2002 4:18:51 PM |
|
#17 - If by liberal you mean a person who believes in freedom, then yes, I'm a liberal.
More specifically, I'm a Libertarian. (Notice the "Liber" party of that word?) What's a Libertarian? Well, they are what Republicans used to be before the Christian Right got a hold of the party and destroyed any notion of freedom that the party once held. Anyway... #16 - Sodablue is correct. Clinton didn't have the support of the American people when it came to the events mentioned. If you're going to be consistent (which Republicans rarely are), why not also blame Bush Sr. who let Saddam live even though he had a massive approval rate? Saddam funded Al Qaida and terrorism in general... but I guess it's OK to forget that. Oh, and why not blame Bush Sr. for dismantling our foreign intelligence network soon after he was elected? In addition, Bush supports always seem to love to answer the charge that Bush is a moron (which he is, and it's not just because of the way he talks), with the idea that it's OK because he has lots of smart people around him. I don't know... I always had this funny idea that the President of the United States should have at least above-average intelligence. I guess that's just me... |
| #11 By 2332 (129.21.145.80) at 3/17/2002 5:21:32 PM |
|
I agree... both "sides" are corrupt. Hence the reason I'm not part of either "side".
Anyway, the economy is not Clinton's fault - nor was the booming economy his achievement. Economic policy typically takes about 3 to 6 months to take affect, so the argument that somehow it was Bush Sr. (or, gasp, REGAN!) who was responsible for the booming economy is ridiculous. One thing I do know is that "trickle down" economics is a bunch of baloney. I've read countless papers and books on the subject, and the evidence for its success is about as solid as the evidence for alien visitation. If Republicans were really about "freedom", why not make the markets truly free? Why not get rid of limited liability (which is the root cause for 99.999% of all problems that Democrats attribute to Big Business)? I'll tell you why. Republicans aren't about freedom; they are about keeping their constituents rich and happy. Don't agree? Then maybe you're not a Republican. If you think people should be free, and that all other rights stem from the fundemental right to this freedom, then you're a Libertarian. Libertarian ideology sure isn't perfect... but it's the best bet I've seen to date. |
| #12 By 1913 (68.14.48.57) at 3/17/2002 8:35:23 PM |
|
Whoa ...from Reagan to GW Bush and in between, and throw in a bit of Anti-Christ ...what ever happened to the topic "Bush Adviser Aided Microsoft. Foe"?
Hmmm ...somehow it got lost in the MIX. This post was edited by rommels on Sunday, March 17, 2002 at 20:36. |
| #13 By 2332 (129.21.145.80) at 3/17/2002 10:38:55 PM |
|
#53 - Please, provide me with ANY evidence that supports your claim.
History seems to tell a much different story. When the rich get taxes breaks, they don't spend that money, they save it. The rich are rich because they know how to save. It's as simple as that. But, I have a very open mind. If you would care to show me any example of tax breaks for the rich leading to an economic recovery (or even slight up turn) within 3 to 6 months of the tax break, I would be happy to examine it. (Hell, I've even look at 9 months afterword... but that's pushing it.) By the way, the house may have been controlled by the Democrats between 1981 and 1988, but the Senate was controlled for all 8 years by Republicans. The Senate tends to have greater control over the budget process than the house, in addition to having sole control over taxation. Another tidbit - The United States has one of the lowest tax rates of any industrialized nation on the planet. |
| #14 By 1913 (68.14.48.57) at 3/17/2002 11:27:16 PM |
|
Well #35 I am commenting on the comments that are being posted here.
Yes I know the article has nothing to do with Reagan, Bush, Clinton or whatsoever, but does any of the comments posted here had anything to do with the article? Hmmm ...I don't think so. In fact maybe you are the one that said something about the Anti-Christ. I don't see that in the article either. - I do wish that AW get rid of the Anonymous posting. This entire comment section became a policate view debate forum ...which is kinda fun to read. By the way #35 I used to be #49. |
| #15 By 2332 (129.21.145.80) at 3/17/2002 11:30:12 PM |
|
#37 - Define Republican.
"So many people forget what Bush has done for us... Resolving the 9/11 and also giving everyone (liberals included) refunds on their taxes... " Sigh... resolved 9/11? How so? I think the administration has done a fine job, but that has nothing to do with Bush. Anybody in his position would rise to the occasion. Lincoln did. FDR did. JFK did. It has nothing to do with being Republican (notice the 2:1 ratio of Democrats to Republicans there?), and everything to do with the situation. As far as the tax break... ya, so now were back to deficit spending. There's a sound business practice for you. I just want the government to spend what little money I give them correctly. The problem isn't that we are taxed too much (we aren't), it's that the money is spent on insane things with little or no vision. "Of course the press and internet is mostly liberal, so I probably gets some flame... " Well, studies have been done on this, and they consistantly report that the media isn't bais either way. The only bais common in today's media is bad news versus good news - in favor of the bad. It wasn't always this way... |
| #16 By 2332 (129.21.145.80) at 3/17/2002 11:31:52 PM |
|
#38 - And, imho, that's a damn good thing.
One truly American value is that of individualism... welfare is a polar opposite of that ideal. This post was edited by RMD on Sunday, March 17, 2002 at 23:33. |
| #17 By 1913 (68.14.48.57) at 3/17/2002 11:42:36 PM |
|
RMD ...nothing against you, but about what you said ...
"Sigh... resolved 9/11? How so? I think the administration has done a fine job, but that has nothing to do with Bush." The administration that has done a fine job belongs to Bush. He was the one that made that administration ...so it has something to do with him. |
| #18 By 3339 (12.254.231.11) at 3/18/2002 12:09:30 AM |
| Wow, 42 posts, and I haven't had a comment. |
| #19 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 3/18/2002 12:13:08 AM |
|
Sigh... Activewin broke earlier today.
BTW, I encourage all of you to read "Blinded by the Right" by David Brock. I just picked it up, and have been reading it and there is a lot of truth in there. Not just the parts where he exonerates Hillary Clinton for claiming there was a vast right-wing conspiracy, just the way people can sometimes get caught up in something and if they don't sit back they realize that soon fiction becomes reality in their own minds. RMD - Agreed. VooDoo Economics has pretty much proven to be a failure. One of the first things President Clinton did when he got into office was correct the Reagan tax cut by raising the upper bracket rate. The economy boomed as a result. The tax cuts that President Bush pressed forth will probably be his lasting legacy, especially when we sink back into deficit spending this year. BTW, I wonder if Henry Ford was the man who invented Trickle-Up economics. If not, he was one of the first proponents, and I personally feel that's the best way to make an economy move. |
| #20 By 1845 (12.254.231.11) at 3/18/2002 1:31:19 AM |
| I fail to see why raising taxes on the upper bracket would make the economy boom. A good part of the boom of the economy during the Clinton era had to do with the lunacy surrounding the Internet. |
| #21 By 2 (24.54.153.167) at 3/18/2002 1:44:47 AM |
| We fixed the problem that occured earlier today...there should be no more error messages. It was a problem with the int variable in VB and the ranger of integer values, we had to change it to a long integer variable... |
| #22 By 2332 (129.21.145.80) at 3/18/2002 2:20:45 AM |
|
#47 - Yes, I'm not quite sure how that would work either... other than if a cut in the lower tax brakets was included too, which it was in this case.
#46 - Fine then... no more Regan, no more Bush^2. :-) |
| #23 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 3/18/2002 11:05:27 AM |
|
#45 - A lot of wild speculation in that article... I would hesitate to trust it without corroborating evidence.
BobSmith - That's sort of the point. The GOP was claiming the tax hike would cause the economy to slump, because of their VooDoo economics theory. That turned out to not be the case. I work in the mortgage industry, and we feel that much of the economic boom was a result of stabilization in interest rates to relatively low levels. :) RMD - Ah ha! More proof that Trickle Up economics works. #46 - I vote we strike the name of Reagan/Bush from the history books like they did with Stalin. |
| #24 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 3/18/2002 2:13:18 PM |
|
#51 - Good point. I do think that what aided the markets in the 1990's was really the commitment from above to stabilize the Governmental aspect of the economy. As you said, decreased deficit spending. Greenspan was also cautious and tried not to overreact.
One of the problems with increased government spending is that it directs resources in ways which are not always beneficial to the economy. As you point out, deficits generate bonds. Investors prefer government bonds over private because of the tax-free nature and decreased risk. But that means that billions go towards that purpose instead of going into Mortgage securities or other areas. This makes capital harder to come by in the other areas, which drives up rates, which then impacts individuals and companies ability to borrow money. It is all very complex. Another issue that became apparent in the 80's was the motivation to companies to invest in technologies which benefited the defense industry. This was at the expense of technologies which benefitted consumer products. In the 90's with the decrease in defense spending, companies redirected towards consumer products, which resulted in improved automobiles, electronics and other items that people actually buy... further strengthening the US economy. #52 - Yes, Bush is largely at fault fot he economic downturn. Obviously 9/11 had a signifigant impact, but Bush was pushing for a recession as early as late 2000. He had to have it to justify his tax cut. The talk of recession made people uneasy, directly impacted consumer confidence, that coupled with the passage of the tax cut threw everything for a loop. The impact of 9/11 would not have been as signifigant if it had not been for the earlier talking down of the economy the Bush administration had done. It was very irresponsible of them. I also worry about the current discussion of defense spending... not because it is not needed, but the Star Wars program appears to be pork barrel and will likely result in similar problems with technology priorities that I discuss above. |
| #25 By 135 (208.50.201.48) at 3/18/2002 6:50:24 PM |
|
z00ker - If you go to bigcharts.com you can pull up 2-5 year charts on Nasdaq and DJIA. If you really start digging in, you'll notice a trend... that there was a signifigant downturn that occured after November of 2000.
It's even more specific than that, there was signifigant declines in the stock market on the days following signifigant news pointing to Bush as winning the election, and rebounds on days where news was announced that Gore might win his bid for a recount. In December of 2000, Cheney announced that the country was in a recession. The Clinton Administration responded with something like "While we certainly agree that Cheney has a lot of experience with recessions, the economic forecast is positive right now and there is no indication that we are presently in one." As further evidence, the economists are saying that the "recession" did not actually start until April or May of 2001, after the Bush negativity campaign had had it's full impact on consumer confidence. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 172 Last | Next |
The time now is
6:19:42 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
