PDA

View Full Version : Predictions for the future:



teknobucks
01-12-2005, 04:50 PM
Predictions for the future:


The year is 2029-----

Ozone created by electric cars now killing millions in the seventh
largest country in the world, Mexifornia formally known as
California. White minorities still trying to have English
recognized as Mexifornia's third language.

Spotted Owl plague threatens northwestern United States crops and
livestock.

Baby conceived naturally . . . scientists stumped.

Couple petitions court to reinstate heterosexual marriage.

Last remaining Fundamentalist Muslim dies in the American Territory
of the Middle East (formerly known as Iran, Afghanistan, Syria and
Lebanon).

Iraq still closed off; physicists estimate it will take at least 10
more years before radioactivity decreases to safe levels.

France pleads for global help after being overtaken by Jamaica.

Castro finally dies at age 112; Cuban cigars can now be imported
legally, but President Chelsea Clinton has banned all smoking.

George Z. Bush says he will run for President in 2036.

Postal Service raises price of first class stamp to $17.89 and
reduces mail delivery to Wednesdays only.

85-year, $75.8 billion study: Diet and Exercise is the key to weight
loss.

Average weight of Americans drops to 250 lbs.

Japanese scientists have created a camera with such a fast shutter
speed, they now can photograph a woman with her mouth shut.

Massachusetts executes last remaining conservative.

Supreme Court rules punishment of criminals violates their civil
rights.

The average height of NBA players now nine feet, seven inches.

New federal law requires that all nail clippers, screwdrivers, fly
swatters and rolled-up newspapers must be registered by January
2036.

Congress authorizes direct deposit of formerly illegal political
contributions to campaign accounts.

Capitol Hill intern indicted for refusing to have sex with
congressman.

IRS sets lowest tax rate at 75 percent.

Florida Democrats still don't know how to use a voting machine

*******short the CAC and go long in the jamacian market:P...LMAO

tekno

Rolo
01-12-2005, 07:17 PM
OMG! ROFLMAO!!!!

That was hysterical.

toddlure
01-12-2005, 10:34 PM
When I clicked on "PREDICTIONS FOR THE FUTURE" I must admit I was thinking of something quite different.
That, my friend, was worth logging on for! thanks.

Rolo
01-12-2005, 11:18 PM
Same here, Todd!

Welcome, BTW.

JerBer
01-27-2005, 03:49 PM
Speaking of predictions......

Anyone want to guess how the election in Iraq will affect the market?

cowboy
01-27-2005, 05:01 PM
Nota! absolute Zipp! No! Marco Pono! LOL!!:^

Rolo
01-27-2005, 05:11 PM
haha cowboy



My unqualified guess is that it will have a positive impact, if anything, if it goes well...a sense of completion and moving forward and all.

MyMagic 8-Ball says the election will "most likely" make the market go up.

01-28-2005, 05:20 AM
When the US leaves Iraq, the markets will rally big time.

nnuut
01-28-2005, 07:17 PM
Need we say more? Hope to be 100% invested.:!

Rolo
01-29-2005, 10:44 AM
saraho wrote:
When the US leaves Iraq, the markets will rally big time.
Or when the media stops covering it, whichever comes first.

01-29-2005, 12:48 PM
Rolo wrote:
saraho wrote:
When the US leaves Iraq, the markets will rally big time.
Or when the media stops covering it, whichever comes first.

No dear. The markets are composed of bulls and bears, not ostriches. What I meant was thatwhen the US stops spending money on Iraq, our deficit will start to reduce and the markets will rally.

teknobucks
01-29-2005, 10:48 PM
CIA report: American global dominance could end in 15 years.
By Fred Kaplan
Posted Wednesday, Jan. 26, 2005, at 2:48 PM PT
http://slate.msn.com/id/2112697/ (http://slate.msn.com/id/2112697/)

Who will be the first politician brave enough to declare publicly that the United States is a declining power and that America's leaders must urgently discuss what to do about it? This prognosis of decline comes not (or not only) from leftist scribes rooting for imperialism's downfall, but from the National Intelligence Council—the "center of strategic thinking" inside the U.S. intelligence community.

The NIC's conclusions are starkly presented in a new 119-page document, "Mapping the Global Future: Report of the National Intelligence Council's 2020 Project." It is unclassified and available on the CIA's Web site. The report has received modest press attention the past couple weeks, mainly for its prediction that, in the year 2020, "political Islam" will still be "a potent force." Only a few stories or columns have taken note of its central conclusion:

The likely emergence of China and India ... as new major global players—similar to the advent of a united Germany in the 19th century and a powerful United States in the early 20th century—will transform the geopolitical landscape with impacts potentially as dramatic as those in the previous two centuries.

In this new world, a mere 15 years away, the United States will remain "an important shaper of the international order"—probably the single most powerful country—but its "relative power position" will have "eroded." The new "arriviste powers"—not only China and India, but also Brazil, Indonesia, and perhaps others—will accelerate this erosion by pursuing "strategies designed to exclude or isolate the United States" in order to "force or cajole" us into playing by their rules.

America's current foreign policy is encouraging this trend, the NIC concluded. "U.S. preoccupation with the war on terrorism is largely irrelevant to the security concerns of most Asians," the report states. The authors don't dismiss the importance of the terror war—far from it. But they do write that a "key question" for the future of America's power and influence is whether U.S. policy-makers "can offer Asian states an appealing vision of regional security and order that will rival and perhaps exceed that offered by China." If not, "U.S. disengagement from what matters to U.S. Asian allies would increase the likelihood that they will climb on Beijing's bandwagon and allow China to create its own regional security that excludes the United States."

To the extent that these new powers seek others to emulate, they may look to the European Union, not the United States, as "a model of global and regional governance."

This shift to a multipolar world "will not be painless," the report goes on, "and will hit the middle classes of the developed world in particular" with further outsourcing of jobs and outflow of capital investment. In short, the NIC's forecast involves not merely a recalibration in the balance of world power, but also—as these things do—a loss of wealth, income, and, in every sense of the word, security.

The trends should already be apparent to anyone who reads a newspaper. Not a day goes by without another story about how we're mortgaging our future to the central banks of China and Japan. The U.S. budget deficit, approaching a half-trillion dollars, is financed by their purchase of Treasury notes. The U.S. trade deficit—much of it amassed by the purchase of Chinese-made goods—now exceeds $3 trillion. Meanwhile, China is displacing the United States all across Asia—in trade, investment, education, culture, and tourism. It's also cutting into the trade markets of Latin America. (China is now Chile's No. 1 export market and Brazil's No. 2 trade partner.) Asian engineering students who might once have gone to MIT or Cal Tech are now going to universities in Beijing.

Meanwhile, as the European Union becomes a coherent entity, the dollar's value against the euro has fallen by one-third in the past two years (one-eighth just since September). As the dollar's rate of return declines, currency investors—including those who have been financing our deficit—begin to diversify their holdings. In China, Japan, Russia, and the Middle East, central bankers have been unloading dollars in favor of euros. The Bush policies that have deepened our debt have endangered the dollar's status as the world's reserve currency.

What is the Bush administration doing to alter course or at least cushion the blow? It's hard to say. During Condoleezza Rice's confirmation hearings last week, Sen. Paul Sarbanes, D–Md., raised some questions about the nexus between international economics and political power. Rice referred him to the secretary of the treasury.

The NIC issued the report a few weeks before Bush’s inaugural address, but it serves to dump still more cold water on the lofty fantasy of America delivering freedom to oppressed people everywhere. In Asia, the report states, "present and future leaders are agnostic on the issue of democracy and are more interested in developing what they perceive to be the most effective model of governance." If the president really wanted to spread freedom and democracy around the planet, he would (among other things) need to present America as that "model of governance"—to show the world, by its example, that free democracies are successful and worth emulating. Yet the NIC report paints a world where fewer and fewer people look to America as a model of anything. We can't sell freedom if we can't sell ourselves.

Fred Kaplan writes the "War Stories" column for Slate. He can be reached at war_stories@hotmail.com.

teknobucks
01-29-2005, 10:50 PM
http://mmacycles.com/artweek.htm

LMAO!

teknobucks
01-29-2005, 11:15 PM
http://fergusonreport.myonlinepublication.com/article.asp?pop_id=161&article_id=316

Rolo
01-31-2005, 10:32 PM
teknobucks wrote:
The likely emergence of China and India ... as new major global players

India? Global Domination Through Tech Support? :D



saraho wrote:
Rolo wrote:
saraho wrote:
When the US leaves Iraq, the markets will rally big time.
Or when the media stops covering it, whichever comes first.

No dear. The markets are composed of bulls and bears, not ostriches.



LOL! Ostriches...well put, point taken. What I meant though, is that the market is composed of humans, and (most) humans have emotions and those emotions make them do things. Would you agree that, to some noteworthy extent anyway, that the "feel-goodyness" would influence the market to a rally?

02-01-2005, 05:25 AM
Rolo wrote:
saraho wrote:
Rolo wrote:
saraho wrote:
When the US leaves Iraq, the markets will rally big time.
Or when the media stops covering it, whichever comes first.

No dear. The markets are composed of bulls and bears, not ostriches.



LOL! Ostriches...well put, point taken. What I meant though, is that the market is composed of humans, and (most) humans have emotions and those emotions make them do things. Would you agree that, to some noteworthy extent anyway, that the "feel-goodyness" would influence the market to a rally?



Look. I'll make it simpler for you, Rolo. You have three banks. One is solvent. One is insolvent. And the third one doesn't tell you anything but they do give out smiley faces and American flags. Which would you invest in? ;)

Mike
02-01-2005, 06:11 AM
I'm bullish on smileys - and they pay big dividends. :D

02-01-2005, 09:37 AM
What is going to happen is like in 1987 because of the U.S. dollar falling. What happened the S&P 500 fell over 25% in two days because Japan did not come to the table and buy at the treasury auction.

The U.S. can not continue to bleed red and expect foreign holdings of our debt to take the loss. Currently nearly 50% of our debt is held by international holders. As an example Germany lost nearly $3B last year holding U.S. dollars - OUCH! That is a major GDP hit...which is why the are hurting.

Gold has gone up over $125 a ounce in one year. Yet we are told inflation is not peeking through. Since they do not count food, energy and housing into that number...which is the big three expenses for the "normal" person then I guess they are right. When the fed guys are asked about that they say computers are 17% cheaper YOY. Hey who goes to the computer store every week to purchase a computer? We go to the gas station and grocery store each week thou and I am shocked each week at the increases in goods.

Should be a interesting year.

The new touchy feely MT.

Sorry if I offend anyone. I am a type AAA person and kind of know what I am talking about. I just do not want to see people loss money. :).

It is easy to make - hard to keep.

Love all of ya.

MT

Rolo
02-01-2005, 09:53 AM
saraho wrote:
Look. I'll make it simpler for you, Rolo. You have three banks. One is solvent. One is insolvent. And the third one doesn't tell you anything but they do give out smiley faces and American flags. Which would you invest in? ;)

It doesn't matter in which one I invest, what matters is in which one the Market invests. Don't argue with the Market, you will lose every time.

If the Market were strictly comprised of saraho's and Rolo's, we would have never had a Great Depression, tech bubble of 2000, or three million dollar tulip bulbs.

Given the amount of ribbons and American flags I see in public...umm, you are making my argument. :D

02-01-2005, 09:58 AM
I believe the tuliet bulbs example was a European diaster...not U.S. Our major "other" bubble was sugar...when that got moved out of our boarders in the late 1870.

History does repeat itself.

This year is 1987.

Falling dollar and massive debts.

:cool:

tsptalk
02-01-2005, 07:17 PM
MarketTimer wrote:
The new touchy feely MT.

Welcome. ;)

Mike
02-02-2005, 01:33 AM
So which is it: 2000 or 1987? Those were very different years both economically and in terms of the market.

If the market continues upward, it'll be interesting to see how much pain the people shorting the market can endure.

teknobucks
02-09-2005, 06:05 AM
holy sheite!

http://www.indiadaily.com/editorial/02-03b-05.asp

teknobucks
02-09-2005, 06:25 AM
IN MEMORIAM: CHEAP OIL
By Eric J. Fry

The world will not run out of oil any time soon...just
CHEAP oil...

So says a fascinating report that bears the title: "The
Death of Cheap Oil." The report's author, Steve Belmont,
Senior Market Strategist for the Rutsen Meier Belmont Group
LLC in Chicago, lays out a compelling - and somewhat
frightening - case for much higher oil prices.

Admittedly, oil prices might retreat a bit over the near
term, as evidenced by yesterday's $1.20 slide to $45.28 a
barrel, but Belmont believes the price of crude oil will be
much higher by the end of 2006 than it is today. He bases
his bullish call on the inevitable - he believes - clash
between shrinking supplies and soaring demand. To preview
his conclusion: Buy long-dated call options on crude oil.

In Today's Rude Awakening we highlight the first half of
Belmont's argument: oil demand. Tomorrow we'll examine the
supply side, while also revealing Belmont's suggested
course of action.

"Oil prices are vulnerable to a perpetual state of shock,"
Belmont's report begins, due to a 'new era' of soaring
demand, depleting supplies and semi-permanent geo-political
tension, especially in the Middle East. "The $40 per barrel
peaks of the past decade could easily become the floor of
the next," Belmont predicts. "$70, $80 or even $100 per
barrel oil is not only possible, but probable in the coming
decade."

As the Asian economies continue industrializing, the report
points out, demand for oil will soar...or at least it
should. "Total global demand for crude oil is currently 80
million barrels per day (MBD)," says Belmont. "Of those 80
million barrels per day, America's population of 293
million people consume roughly 22 MBD. Meanwhile, Asia's
3.6 billion people - well over 12 times the size of the
U.S. population - consumed just 20 MBD. Should Asian per-
capita-consumption rise from its measly 7% of U.S. per-
capita demand to a mere 14%, the market would have to
supply an additional 20 million barrels of oil per day.
This is one-fourth of today's entire global demand...

"Let's look at it another way," says Belmont. "U.S.
consumption of crude oil is roughly 28 barrels per person
per year. South Korea's annual per capita consumption is
17 barrels and so is Japan's. These are both developed
Asian nations. China is rapidly becoming a developed Asian
nation, yet its per capita consumption of crude oil is only
1.7 barrels per year." But Chinese demand is racing to
catch up. Crude oil imports to China jumped a whopping 33%
last year.

But, says Belmont, the bull case for oil does not rest
entirely on the magnitude of demand, but also on the
rapidly changing structure of demand. Now that the Chinese
are maneuvering to secure long-term oil supplies, for
example, future supplies available to other buyers will be
reduced.

The Chinese are actively negotiating to secure long-term
supplies from countries as geographically and politically
diverse as Canada, Saudi Arabia, Iran and Russia. Indeed,
the Chinese and the Russians have embraced one another in a
kind of petro-political bear hug. "When it comes to the
classic relationship between a natural resource producer
and a natural resource consumer," says Belmont, "no two
nations appear more perfectly matched than Russia and
China. Russia produces far more oil that it consumes.
China consumes far more oil than it produces. Both share a
Communist past, a long border complete with road and rail
links, and a history of uneasy relationships with the
world's largest oil consumer: America."

This commercial relationship is spilling over into the
political sphere. For the first time ever, the Russians
recently agreed to hold a large military exercise together
with China on Chinese territory. The exercise will take
place in the second half of the year and will include
'state-of-the-art weapons', according to Russian Defense
Minister, Sergei Ivanov.

As these former Cold War allies draw closer politically and
militarily, they will also draw closer commercially - a
trend that is likely to divert a growing share of Russia's
vast oil supplies away from world markets toward the
thirsty Chinese economy. "Now the China has entered the
game," says Belmont, "America will find itself competing
for shrinking supplies at every level. Over the long haul
that can only mean one thing - higher prices."

Meanwhile, as China and the rest of the world ramp up their
oil consumption, oil production is peaking. The world has
consumed an estimated 1 trillion barrels of oil since the
drilling of the first well in the mid-1800s - almost half
of known recoverable supplies. And no new giant oil fields
have been discovered recently. In fact, discoveries of new
oil reserves peaked in the 1960s and have been declining
rapidly ever since. U.S. oil production peaked in 1970;
North Sea oil production peaked in 1999.

"Given the likelihood that world crude oil production
cannot rise much above 90 million barrels a day," observes
Kevin Kerr, the man behind the Resource Trader Alert, "and
the fact that world demand will easily reach 90 million
barrels per day by the end of 2007, there is little chance
of cheap oil returning. It is unwise to count on sustained
oil prices below $35 to $45 per barrel to ever return
again. You're far more likely to see $100 oil than $35 oil
again."

Rolo
02-09-2005, 07:59 AM
Woooow...I can see a whole new series of James Bond movies being made!

Good thing we have Alaska...we may need it, heh.

cowboy
02-09-2005, 09:39 AM
LOL Rolo! How about buy into gashol we have developed way to run vehicles on alchol and the big oil companies dont want you to use it because it runs cleaner.

Rolo
02-09-2005, 10:43 AM
cowboy wrote:
...we have developed way to run vehicles on alchol ...
Yeah, but what about our 'open container' laws? nyuk nyuk

I guess I should revisit China and Russia funds, eh? Anyone know of a good Russian fund w/o loads? LETRX looked good, cept pricey.

Mike
02-09-2005, 11:47 AM
In MN, we have "E85"... per gallon, it's about the same cost as gasoline, but the mileage is slightly worse, and only a limited number of vehicles are made to run on it.

I have mixed feelings on ethanol. Remember, they gotta burn fossil fuels in large quantities just to produce ethanol, so that's not exactly "clean", either. Hydrogen is as clean as clean gets with just water as exhaust, but again, it requires a fossil fuel input in order to crack the hydrogen from water to produce the H2... and there's no infrastructure to handle it... and no pipelines capable of transporting it without leaking.

We've got our work cut out for us if we want to extricate ourselves somewhat from this oil problem.

Oh yeah, one more thing - regular gasoline in this state is 10% ethanol. So we're doing our part here... when will the rest of you get your act together? :P

cowboy
02-09-2005, 11:47 AM
LOL! Maybe MADD will jump in on this. The same as enviromentalist want to tell everyone what to do.

Rolo
02-09-2005, 12:33 PM
Ewwwwwwww! Ethanol. Yeah, we have that crap here. Crappy octane, too...supposedly because of the thinner air. (I don't buy it..doesn't make sense...my turbo likes those carbon chains...regardless of air molecule density!)

I'm only interested in how clean the gas burns in my cylinders; the "rear end load" is inconsequential. :D

Oil...hmm....Iraq: territory of the United States..?

cowboy
02-09-2005, 01:48 PM
It's funny to me how a race car pretty much runs on alchol and you can't seem to get your turbo to roll over. I noticed commercial high performance engines do have this problem. It could be just the brand of your car or your catalatic converter is plugged but again thin air and alchol do make people dizzy, so it could be the ratio needs to be adjusted and a high proformance engine needs more alchol to run. I don't know, but most things do take a fossil fuel to create.If the rear end load is inconsequential why are we being forced to use it? I think I read some legislature some where that ethanol may become the only fuel clean enough to burn in the bigger cities in the future.Corn is a cheap fuel and our government and laws don't want us to drink it, so why not the car.

02-09-2005, 04:13 PM
file:///C:/My%20Documents/My%20Pictures/622.gifteknobucks, What happened!? Is all this market stuff getting the best of you? You look pale. And you look like you lost a lot of weight - anorexic!http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/4/4_6_4.gif (http://www.smileycentral.com/?partner=ZSzeb001_ZN)

smine
02-09-2005, 08:20 PM
Liposuction?

teknobucks
02-09-2005, 08:20 PM
Wonder Woman wrote:

file:///C:/My%20Documents/My%20Pictures/622.gifteknobucks, What happened!? Is all this market stuff getting the best of you? You look pale. And you look like you lost a lot of weight - anorexic!http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/4/4_6_4.gif (http://www.smileycentral.com/?partner=ZSzeb001_ZN)
hahaha.....could not stand it myself!

had to dither down a cool oldanimated gif into that pathetic image....back 2 my old self now...LOL.

tek

ps: check your yahoo mail

Mike
02-09-2005, 08:51 PM
Rolo, you need to take your car in and have an adjustment made so your engine takes in a larger amount of air to compensate for the lower O2 level at that altitude.

Rolo
02-10-2005, 01:07 PM
Mike wrote:
Rolo, you need to take your car in and have an adjustment made so your engine takes in a larger amount of air to compensate for the lower O2 level at that altitude.
Its computer does eeeeeeverything and adapts to a variety of conditions (including how I drive...none of that soft-shifting stuff here). It seemed to have the altitude figured out by the time I hit NM. I think I will call around and see if there is anything that needs manually adjusted or tweaked now that you mention it.

I'm buying another PT here (the convertible Dream Cruiser), so I can compare its performance to mine. Pretty much. I made some mods to mine, but close enough.

The turbo is spooled much more frequently to compress more air into the intake, so it seems to have it all figured out. Still, though, it doesn't have the power it did at sea level.I lived near the fastest drag strip in the country and now I am at 6,400 ft; I am afraid to see what my 1/4 mile time is here! :(

Does the "you don't need high octane with thinner air" argument sit right with you? Maaaaaybe with a naturally aspirated engine, but I still don't see it.

cowboy
02-10-2005, 04:41 PM
LOL! Actually Rolo, Colorado has thin air, so there should be less resistance in the great Rocky Mountain State. Kind of like when the Rockies hit a ball out of mile high stadium. The same should occur when you put the peddle to the meddle! I would watch what you load the car with. Too much hot air inside may cause the car to lift in a thin air situation. Therefore, said car, maynot touch the ground causing loss of traction.:DGiving the owner the impression that it is not firing right.

Rolo
02-10-2005, 06:00 PM
cowboy wrote:
Colorado has thin air, so there should be less resistance in the great Rocky Mountain State.
hahahaha...but have you seen the drag coefficient of a PT!?

cowboy
02-10-2005, 06:07 PM
LoL! You make a good point!

teknobucks
02-10-2005, 09:14 PM
Rolo??

what did the clown do 2 your dice??

does this mean u will be clowning around a bit more...LOL

tekno

Rolo
02-10-2005, 10:59 PM
Looks like he ate it, heh.

'sok...there's two die to the set...it'll be back! I'm adult ADHD poster-boy, so you'll have to expect that.

teknobucks
02-11-2005, 05:30 PM
here u go!:

http://www.freewebs.com/avatarsgalore123/links.htm


http://www.wecutclutter.com/priv/sigs



http://www.avatarsgalore.com



http://www.planetsmilies.com/modules/news



http://www.animations-galore.com

TEUFEL HUNDEN
02-16-2005, 11:33 AM
Tekno, you may get a laugh out of this one. Just imagine what some go through after missing a rally or not getting that change in before the deadline

teknobucks
02-19-2005, 11:55 AM
they still do something like that in the mid-east to themselves everyday!

without the benifit of a crummy day in the market:P

TEUFEL HUNDEN
02-21-2005, 01:41 PM
True

02-21-2005, 01:59 PM
1. Bogle warns of excessive fees

Vanguard's founder Jack Bogle says: "The costs of offering mutual funds to millions of small accounts making weekly or monthly contributions would be even larger than today's already excessive level of fund costs." The new layer of expenses will result in returns "even less than the current yield on the U.S. Treasury bond."

2. Retirees lose in bear markets

During the 2000-2002 bear market, investors lost about $8 trillion. Many retirement nest eggs were emasculated. Meanwhile, Wall Street's assets-based strategy gave insiders a cushion. While the average American fund investor lost more than 40 percent in the bear market, fund owners, directors and managers took in more than $200 billion annually in fees, operating expenses, transaction costs, soft-money and other hidden compensation from deals with brokers and silent third-parties.

3. Big fees drowning other programs

BusinessWeek, in the depths of that bear market, joking referred to the 401(k) as a "201(k)." Returns were that bad. Yet that didn't prevent stock funds from increasing their average expense ratio by a whopping 36 percent between 1999 and 2002, Morningstar says. Last year BusinessWeek again warned: "Fees can take as much as 3 percent of an account each year." Moreover, fees in many 529 college-savings plans "fritter away your tax breaks." SmartMoney also warns about 529s: "In reality, you'll drown in fees, sacrifice financial aid and get lousy returns."

4. Disastrous results overseas

Foreign nations are often cited as models for a privatized retirement system. However, in Great Britain "financial intermediaries have eaten up an average of 43 percent of the returns" and left the government with "substantial new expenses, lost tax revenues." The World Bank says Chile is a "disappointment." Many employees who stayed in the old system are now retiring with three times more than those who went with the new privatization.

5. Big fees in bigger government

Closer to home, our Congressional Budget Office predicts that future generations will get "returns even lower than under our pay-as-you-go system." Plus we'll get bigger government with a costly new federal bureaucracy staffed by more than 10,000 employees to monitor private accounts for more 100 million participants.

02-21-2005, 02:04 PM
Iraqi women no better off post-Saddam
[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/size][/FONT][/size]

[]

[][size="The lawlessness and increased killings, abductions and rapes that followed the overthrow of the government of Saddam Hussein have restricted women's freedom of movement and their ability to go to school or to work," Amnesty said.][/font]


[][size="Women have been subjected to sexual threats by members of the U.S.-led forces and some women detained by U.S. forces have been sexually abused.]
]

TEUFEL HUNDEN
02-21-2005, 02:12 PM
Dr_Dubious wrote:
Iraqi women no better off post-Saddam
[/size][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/size][/size][/font]

[][][][]

[][][][][size="The lawlessness and increased killings, abductions and rapes that followed the overthrow of the government of Saddam Hussein have restricted women's freedom of movement and their ability to go to school or to work," Amnesty said.]


[][][][][size="Women have been subjected to sexual threats by members of the U.S.-led forces and some women detained by U.S. forces have been sexually abused.]
]



][size=3]TOTAL CROCK OF CRAP. US Forces don't do that. Propaganda Bull Puckey.]]

Rolo
02-21-2005, 02:57 PM
Dr_Dubious wrote:
1. Bogle warns of excessive fees

Vanguard's founder Jack Bogle says: "The costs of offering mutual funds to millions of small accounts making weekly or monthly contributions would be even larger than today's already excessive level of fund costs." The new layer of expenses will result in returns "even less than the current yield on the U.S. Treasury bond."
Ummm....that is what the TSP is and it seems to be doing well. Jack can't beat Barclay's? No wonder we outsource internationally. :?

Dr_Dubious wrote:
2. Retirees lose in bear markets


Yeah, but I bet they were laughing right up until 2000. Greed kills.

Dr_Dubious wrote:
Plus we'll get bigger government with a costly new federal bureaucracy staffed by more than 10,000 employees to monitor private accounts for more 100 million participants.



Umm...how big is SSA? and..umm...if you increase your bureaucracy, then you didn't privatise.


Dr_Dubious wrote:
But Amnesty said post-war insecurity had left women at risk of violence and curtailed their freedoms.

Umm...okay...they hate us becuase we keep trying to turn every country into America. Stop it.

Mike
02-21-2005, 06:56 PM
Welcome back, MT. :s

Rolo
02-21-2005, 11:01 PM
Mike wrote:
Welcome back, MT. :s
haha...there ya are, Mike! GMTA!

TEUFEL HUNDEN
02-22-2005, 09:39 AM
I would not doubt it one bit.

02-22-2005, 07:44 PM
Damn, didin't put 4 and 2 together...............

Mike
02-22-2005, 09:46 PM
I better be careful - people might start telling me I missed my calling as a detective. :shock:

What's worse is I've been told that one of my outfits makes me look like I work for the FBI (strangely, the same outfit has also led others to say I look like a gangster). :shock:

Maybe I'll create a website for the sole purpose of putting pictures up there so I can directly post them here rather than having to screw around with the avatar and its tiny space requirement. Then you all can judge for yourselves. :P