texastrixie

No, I'm not so awesome. That's the point. Google is a bubble all on its own. So is gold, so is oil. You cannot eat gold or power your car or home on it. No one is rioting in a third world country over gold - you riot over food.

Oil is still going up, but China is drilling in the outer Gulf Coast and today there is word that Brazil may have identified a new (big) oil field. Plus, people are still driving in this country. By summer they won't be. Going somewhere on a whim won't be worth it at $4/gallon. Oil will come down - not to $30 a barrel, but probably in the $85-$90 range. Then it will be time to jump back in. All of this information is in the newspaper or easily accessible online or on tv financial news. If you have a 401 and don't keep up with this stuff, you are going to end up losing a large portion of your investment return.

As I have diversified my 401, I only invest in stocks or commodities that have been recommended by at least two unassociated sources. At night, instead of sit coms or Grey's anatomy, I have on CNBC. posted 04/15/2008 at 13:48:20

Mr. Bing, if you truly bought Google at $700, you may know finance, but you certainly can't read the market very well. I sold all my gold at $990 and all my oil at $101. I have absolutely no business or finance experience, but I do read the paper and get my financial advice from CNBC's '''Fast Money." Maybe you should try watching them. posted 04/15/2008 at 01:09:23

I have seen this woman on O'Reilly when he is trying to convince the country that the criminal justice system should be his own special vigilante squad. She actually does know the law and tries to explain that we can't lock up people just because we want to (excluding Arabs of course), There is some other blond female lawyer on at the same time who seems to have obained her degree from the O'Reilly school of law. I wonder if the women on this network realize that as soon as they start to age, they will be up for replacement since their intellectual ability is of little importance to Faux Noise. Makes me a little sad to think young girls are growing up in this world and how little it has really chaned since I was young. posted 04/14/2008 at 15:16:16

This column, and its condescending attitude towards middle American, is typical of the problems Democrats will have in winning the White House in November, even as the economy slides into recession.

Yes, lots of people want to ban guns int his country. But lots of people don't. Lots of people still hunt or want a gun for home protection. Knocking these people for simply disagreeing with one's own philosophy alienates the very voters Obama needs.

And Hillary Clinton did not throw Obama to the ground and stick his foot in his mouth for him. He did this all by himself. The statement did sound elitist, and while he is doing a fairly good job of overcoming this misstep, it still highlights his disjointed relationship with the middle class. I know he understands every aspect of the black community, rich, middle class, or poor. And I think he understands the lives of white and Hispanic voters of all socio-economic classes. But he doesn't always show this. posted 04/14/2008 at 14:12:59

For pete's sake, its only a piece of paper. I normally can't see beautiful actresses for dust, but this woman has matured into a caring mother and humanitarian. She's not perfect, but she consistently tries to make this world a better place. Maybe all these negative comments are coming from rocket scientists who seek a cure for cancer as a hobby. Me, I'm just a regular person who only hopes she would be as generous (at any point in my life). posted 04/10/2008 at 02:18:51

Instead of this Vice Presidency we keep waving at Hillary to make her give up, why don't the party bigwigs offer her something useful - like a Supreme Court Judgeship. Supposedly there is more than one justice just hanging on, hoping a Democratic President would be elected. Who knows, we might actually have a day (or two) where we'd have more than one token woman on the court. Plus, it would give Hillary a real use for her talents - I can't see her embracing being Senate majority leader, and it would effectively take the Clintons off the national radar. Supreme Court justices can't talk about what they do, why they do it, or much else about the court's deliberations.

Bill would still be out there, but he'd have to really kick it over the summer to help Obama be elected if he wants the national limelight anymore. I stood by him through all the stupdity over Monica (I think Hillary should have publicly beat him over the head with a broom across the White House lawn), but being impeached was a waste of everyone's time and our money. posted 04/06/2008 at 14:39:16

Don't bet on the feminist bitterness lessening or that blue collar Reagan Democrats will side with Obama. I support Obama, but the voter loyalty to Clinton by regular working people cannot be easily dismissed. I think Obama will be the nominee, no matter how long Hillary stays in the race. However, while it seems impossible to me that the country could prefer McCain over any Democrat, I think the rhetoric against the Clintons is dangerous. More people who prefer Clinton are anti-Obama than the reverse. It is still very possible to lose this election if the snarky snide attacks on both sides don't diminsh. posted 04/01/2008 at 13:31:41

There is no way that 5 children do not breathe in more oxygen than 2 children would. Factually impossible. posted 03/29/2008 at 02:46:59

Neither of these people is "a good person." She is the unmarried nanny who allowed herself to become involved with her employer. He is a man who dumped the woman who had stood by him while he made his way to the top - along with his extended, documented, drug use.

Neither one considered how this would traumatize the child he fathered and she was hired to be take care of.

I like Robin Williams comedy but I can't decide which one of these two people deserve the shaft in this instance. When he marries, yet again, here's hoping he doesn't father any more children who will have to live through daddy and mommy's divorce. posted 03/26/2008 at 16:08:54

Once again, this "intervention" was all for show.

Wallace wants Obama on his Sunday show. So far, Obama has been smart enough to stay away. Nobody who watches Fox News (and believes it) is going to vote for Obama. Its a no win situation for Obama. The more openly "unbalanced" Fox News is, the easier it is for Obama to resist the network's taunting that he make himself available to be drawn and quartered.

Just as Fox News bears only a resemblance to a real news network, Chris Wallace no longer bears anything but a resemblance to a real reporter. posted 03/27/2008 at 02:10:23

This is all for show.

Chris Wallace is the worst of anyone on Faux News because he was once a real journalist. By agreeing to moderate Fox's version of a Sunday news show, he has brought a semblance of balance to this Republican news channel which is, to my mind, more unprincipled than O'Reilly, etc. Wallce may actually understand how biased this entire network is, yet not care as long as he keeps the job he has.

First off, the anchor who "stalked" off was probably going to the bathroom. I was watching this little exchange, and he did not seem upset in any way. Wallce later came on to try to blunt the obvious anti-Obama rhetoric because Fox is desperate to force Obama to come on its channel.

Fox is realizing that the same bias that gave them almost exclusive access to President (and I use the term loosely) Bush will now almost assuredly cut them off from any meaningful contact with the next administration if a Democrat wins. (Hillary will dump Faux News in a second if she is elected.) So, Faux News' only way to get access is to force appearances by Democrats through negative public reaction.

Therefore, if Faux News is blatantly biased, they lose much of their public argument. That's why Wallace came on - to insure his whinning call for Obama to grace his Sunday show maintains it's viability.

Once again, Obama would be a fool to go on Faux News. People either watch this channel because they want constant reassurance that the world is Republican in every respect (or should be), or they watch because they hate Faux News and want to see what slanderous, stupid ideas they are formulating at that moment (my reason for viewing).

Those who believe that anyone who doesn't adhere to the Republican mindset is a communist, traitor, socialist, etc., will NEVER VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT. Those who watch because they think everyone on Faux News is essentially crazy, could care less about Obama being interviewed on Faux News.

Faux News was one of the first media outlets to show those tapes of Obama's pastor, and they have been flogging this dead horse every hour on the hour since then. They are so obviously anti-Obama that he would be stupid to accept any invitation to be interviewed by anyone on this channel. He stands to gain nothing by appearing there, and this organization is waiting to get him in a corner where they can make him out to be anti-American. Stay away Obama - you can't help yourself here! posted 03/21/2008 at 12:18:33

This writer must have had no other ideas for a column today. As a potential Texas "cross-over" voter, this is a big non-issue. Any lawsuit brought by anybody is going to be thrown out. You cannot prove what is in a person's mind at a given moment, and thus this is a column just taking up space and cannot accomplish anything. The fact this twerp gets space on a national website only shows how low "journalism" has gone. posted 03/21/2008 at 11:55:52