Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
And how about JOEMONEY?
Would I get to wear my monkey suit?
*points finger* Bwahahahaha!
Poor phil is in the jailhouse. I suspect he'll be here for a while.
But either there are rules, or there are no rules.
Wrong, Matt specifically has said, no sexually vulgar posts. There are always rules, where ever you go, no matter what they tell you.
Matt should force you to only post stock related posts. You're nothing but an off topic clown.
Try posting on the NOLIB board again asshole.
No better yet, I'd like to see you post on it. ROTFLMAO.
PC liberal assholes like you will never be one of my friends.
So don't even try.
When and why would I try? I think you're a complete fool. I'm also not liberal. Libertarian perhaps. But I am not however, an unsophisticaed sub-human mongrel like yourself who probably worked as an extra on the "Dukes of Hazard."
if that post of phil's that you linked to disturbs you.. I recommend you get professional help
Judging from your Interests/Hobbies it's no surprise they don't disturb you.
Why would you want this person out of jail?
He is constantly making sexually related posts that I personally find disgusting as well. I did not see the post which landed him in jail, but this doesn't surprise me.
Previous offenses:
#msg-2813920 #msg-3993569 #msg-3775422 #msg-3423536 #msg-3391693
And countless others. Just go to his profile and look up any sexual related word. He posts nude pictures of women, makes disgusting comments about girls 1/3 his age, and acts like a 15 year old in doing it.
Anyone who would defend him probably belongs in jail with him. He has no respect for women and it simply a pigheaded pervert who needs psychiatric treatment. I despise people like him.
Joseph Mapleton
I wasn't the author of the poem. However, I think gotmilk, like many online forum users came here in "war mode" prepared to attack even the slightest mistake of someone with opposing political views. He simply saw a small mistake, and took it to the moon. That, IMO, does not make a healthy online forum.
So I described it wrong. Who gave you the title of "Chief Poem Description Inspector?" Are you going to frisk me next?
I was referring to the poem, not the war on terrorism. You leave the poem with the last lines, which is a joke, that gives the poem a lighthearted feeling, which would be why I referred to it as "funny."
Anyone ever read this poem about France and the war on terrorism? Kinda funny. I thought it'd go well on this board. It's not my work, BTW.
Eleven thousand soldiers
lay beneath the dirt and stone,
all buried on a distant land
so far away from home.
For just a strip of dismal beach
they paid a hero's price,
to save a foreign nation
they all made the sacrifice.
And now the shores of Normandy
are lined with blocks of white
Americans who didn't turn
from someone else's plight.
Eleven thousand reasons
for the French to take our side,
but in the moment of our need,
they chose to run and hide.
Chirac said every war means loss,
perhaps for France that's true,
for they've lost every battle
since the days of Waterloo.
Without a soldier worth a damn
to be found in the region,
the French became the only land
to need a Foreign Legion.
You French all say we're arrogant.
Well hell, we've earned the right--
We saved your sorry nation
when you lacked the guts to fight.
But now you've made a big mistake,
and one that you'll regret;
you took sides with our enemies,
and that we won't forget.
It wasn't just our citizens
you spit on when you turned,
but every one of ours who fell
the day the towers burned.
You spit upon our soldiers,
on our pilots and Marines,
and now you'll get a little sense
of just what payback means.
So keep your Paris fashions
and your wine and your champagne,
and find some other market
that will buy your aeroplanes.
And try to find somebody else
to wear your French cologne,
for you're about to find out
what it means to stand alone.
You see, you need us far more
than we ever needed you.
America has better friends
who know how to be true.
I'd rather stand with warriors
who have the will and might,
than huddle in the dark with those
whose only flag is white.
I'll take the Brits, the Aussies,
the Israelis and the rest,
for when it comes to valor
we have seen that they're the best.
We'll count on one another
as we face a moment dire,
while you sit on the sideline
with a sign "friendship for hire."
We'll win this war without you
and we'll total up the cost,
and take it from your foreign aid,
and then you'll feel the loss.
And when your nation starts to fall,
well Frenchie, you can spare us,
just call the Germans for a hand,
they know the way to Paris.
Iran's OPEC governor says oil could fall sharply.
http://biz.yahoo.com/rb/040814/energy_opec_iran_3.html
It's going to be impossible to pick a bottom. I'm just going to wait until the market creates a trading range again. All smart traders will have patience.
Why I'm glad oil is rising.
This happens everytime and people always get bent out of shape when oil rises. Oil rarely sustains dramatic spikes in prices, like we've seen in the past few days. This recent rise in oil prices was caused by nothing but fear. Fear for Yukos and fear for terrorist attacks on Saudi pipelines. This recent rise will not sustain. I expect to see US crude back below $40 a barrel within 4 - 6 weeks, this will give the market time to breathe and allow it to unwind it's oversold condition.
The chicken-littles can squak all they want, I'll be waiting to profit from the rebound like I always do. I am currently short term bullish and I am currently searching for a stock that will follow through on a coming rally. My previous MSFT short position stopped out for a minor profit several days ago.
I am currently waiting for a Nasdaq short term double bottom at 1830, then the rally may proceed.
This is a reply to a test, I repeat, this is a reply to a test.
This is a test, I repeat, this is a test.
Where in florida is your vacation home?
A "school" cannot "teach critical thinking" unless all data is available.
That's not true. Anyone can use critical thinking skills to come to a conclusion about any topic, whether the answer is known or unknown.
I think you and I are saying the same thing, only in a different way?
I think so too. But wow, that's the first time I've ever disagreed with someone who had the same opinion as I did. <g>
Doesn't he have the "Right" to believe that?
Ofcourse he does. But does he have the right to prohibit my child (if I had one) from learning the truth about the "2 + 2" mystery? All evidence points to "4" as the answer, yet teachers are afraid to say "4" because of the anti-intellectuals who insist it's "5".
Additionally, what if he is the one who CAN prove it and we have been wrong all along?
I don't understand. He cannot prove it, and has never offered any logic basis to his belief. And yes, we could say that there is not such thing as being "100% sure" about something. However, as fallible beings, 100% certainty is not an option, so we can only be "reasonably" sure. But I don't think anyone should be taught that solid facts could be wrong, and insane theories could be right. Why? Because not every child has the intellect to separate the illogical theories from the logical ones. Not everyone is that intellectually potent. If you don't believe me, take a drive some Sunday morning, you'll see scores of people going to their weekly gatherings to proclaim and preach about how "2 + 2 = 5." My point, if we raise the question of doubt, we will undoubtly increase the number of people believing things that are most likely false.
But yes I do agree with you when you say we should get children to think. But we should not have to sacrifice the reputation of reasonably proven theories to do this.
how he came to believe that, or to prove it.
But you cannot debate with him. He claims to accept that 2 + 2 = 5 based on "faith." He has no logical basis or evidence. He is the anti-logic. He accepts only on "faith" which is an intellectual forfeit and goes against everything education stands for. Why then should anyone even bother to listen to him? They shouldn't.
To pose differing beliefs and philosophies to a classroom so that our children may come to conclusions on their own.
To say that 2 + 2 = 4 is not a "philosophy" or a "belief system."
If someone came along and insisted 2 + 2 = 5 without offering any proof or evidence as to why, would you respect their "belief" or write them off as a fool for denying logic and the already reasonable evidence that 2 + 2 is 4 and not 5?
The same case could be made for evolution. The best evidence we have in our possession points to evolution as the reason for our existence. There have been no other solid theories to explain our existence (to my knowledge).
However, now we have people coming along saying, "No evolution is wrong. An invisible man in the sky said a few magic words and created the entire universe in a matter of a week." And the kicker is, they offer no evidence or logical basis for their statement, just like the guy who says 2 + 2 = 5. Are they any different from the guy who thinks 2 + 2 = 5?
The media is always in it's "doom and gloom" state when the market has made a healthy downward move.
I really don't spend much time on the subject
How can you expect to make a rational decision without seeing the whole story?
Simple? What's simple is to think the world was created in a matter of days by an invisible man in the sky. I believe in discovering the mysteries of the universe through science, as most all intelligent people do, not biblical fairy tales. Is that considered "simple?"
brainlessone, Yes it was written by people of that time, so ofcourse many geographical aspects are going to be correct. I'm not implying the whole thing was just made up.
By "claims" of the "Judiac-Christian-Muslim religious books" I was implying the basic claims of Jesus as a savior, the Creation story (including the assertation that the world is 4000 years old), and the other mystical aspects of it. You cannot give me one shread of proof of any of these.
That's what your article suggested. I don't dispute that. What point are you trying to make? I would also guess that 92% cannot name the Prime Minister of Canada, or give even a vague explanation of the theory of relativity. Would you agree with this?
So I guess you're intellectually superior to 92% of Americans?
I do not believe I am arrogant. I believe arrogance is similar to being "hard headed." But if you want to know, I am sure, as much as I humanly can without factual evidence, that I am more intelligent that 92% of Americans.
EDIT: I thought you were truth_b_told_2004, ahaha. I apologize. Both aliases begin with a "t"
and I'm not trying to push that view on others.
Then why do people like you insist on banning the marriage of homosexuals? If you don't push your views on others, you should leave them alone, correct?
Zeev, you're a man of science, correct? Then how can you defend belief systems that go against what modern science has taught? I never implied that there must be absolute, undeniable evidence of the existence of something for it to be taught. I was only saying there needs to be a basis of reasonable evidence that asserts something is true. As far as I know, there is no evidence in the claims of the Judiac-Christian-Muslim religious books. Why should something that needs only to be taken by "faith" be taught in schools, which are supposed to teach critical thinking?
How is it not cruel to claim the majority of the world population is doomed for eternal punishment only because they did not obey a certain set of rules or subscribe to a religion without solid evidence?
How is it not silliness to believe in something without any logical basis or factual evidence?
Can you refute those statments?
As for your religion is silliness statement that is simply an ignorant statement and needs no further comments
Why do you say that? I do not see one advantage to allowing myself to believe in the cruel dogma of religion.
They absolutely limit the childrens ability to talk about God. They can't even bring their Bible to school to read at recess or PE.
Even though I am an atheist, I myself would speak out against that. That is a not a "liberal agenda" but a violation of free speech. Students should have a right to bring non-distracting material to school. Nothing like that happens where I live.
not talk about God or be taught about God
As far as talking, a school would never limit a student's freedom of speech. And why would you expect the school system to teach about a non existant being? What is there to teach, even from an unbias perspective? There is no evidence, no logic, or rational basis behind it. What could be taught? Religion is too silly to be taken seriously. If you teach kids to just "believe" in things without questioning or using logic, what kind of niave people are they going to grow up to be?
What other reasons did you have? Did they have any relation to your opinion of homosexuality?
You pulled your kids out of school just because you didn't want them to learn about gays? That's a bit fanatical.
There is no proof that it is a choice.
How can you say something about a lifestyle that you've never experienced? Everytime I've heard that subject come up on television, actual homosexuals have said it was not a choice made by them, they claimed to be "born gay."
There is more evidence to the contrary.
There is no solid evidence for either side, you know this. The only solid evidence are testimonies made by homosexuals, they are the only ones who knows what goes on inside their head.
Why won't you debate it? I've tried to debate this with someone with your views before, yet they backed out because they had no evidence or logical basis for their statements. Are you backing out too?
I think you're missing the point. I am not a homosexual, however, homosexuality is not a conscious choice most of them make. Just as you cannot purposely be homosexual, they cannot purposely be straight. So look at it like this, what harm will is it going to do if they are taught about homosexuality, and they are not homosexual? You cannot "convince" someone to be homosexual. Homosexuality is not a "choice" is a preference left up to the subconscious. It's like having a phobia or a bad temper, you cannot control those things, they are just there. So what exactly is it that you're fearful the schools are doing?
1285 or 1385? 1285? Really? Wow.
I closed out my MSFT short position a few days ago for a minor gain, as I am currently very bullish. The market is at a double bottom on many indexes including the Dow & the NDX. I don't see the NDX trading any lower than 1350.
Currently I have not selected a stock that would best benefit from an upcoming rally, however I am looking. The chances of the market being bottomed out (short term) is very high right now, IMO. However I see the market staggering here for a bit, then proceeding to rally, maybe even a false rally, then short term double bottom, then proceeding to fulfill a healthy rally. You're very brave to think 1285 is possible.